- McDonnell Apologizes for Taking Gifts and Money
- Rubio Hints at Government Shutdown Over Immigration
- Close Three-Way Senate Race in Kansas
- Police Union Won't Back Democratic Convention in Brooklyn
- Is Obamacare Helping Some GOP Governors?
Posts in "Civil Rights"
April 21, 2014
It could be dubbed the federal contractor trifecta.
Employees at businesses that do a lot of work for the government began this election year hoping to benefit in three distinct ways from President Barack Obama’s vow to act on his own whenever Congress deadlocked on his legislative priorities.
Two of those expectations have now been met. In January he ordered contractors to start paying their blue-collar laborers at least $10.10 an hour, realizing his proposal to raise the $7.25 federal minimum wage to that amount was doomed. And this month he declared that workers on federal contracts must be free to discuss their salaries, so women may more easily expose pay inequities at those companies while legislation that could close the wage gender gap nationwide languishes.
Now, the pressure will only intensify for Obama to make good in the third area. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees being paid under federal contracts want to benefit from the same sort of executive order that is aiding female and low-wage workers. And their advocacy groups, along with allies on the Hill, are signaling they’re tired of waiting for the president to apply his “we can’t wait” mantra to their cause.
The issue is job bias against LGBT people. While steady advances continue in the states for same-sex marriage — still the paramount political cause of the gay community — outlawing employment discrimination has become the principal gay rights cause in Washington, in part because it’s unambiguously subject to federal regulation or legislation in a way that marriage equality is not.
Only 21 states have made it illegal to fire or harass someone based on sexual orientation, or to deny a raise or refuse to hire on that same basis. More than 11 million people work in the remaining 29 states for companies without policies protecting workplace civil rights for gay people, according to a recent study by UCLA Law School.
Last November, 10 Republicans joined 54 Democrats in the Senate to pass legislation that would prohibit gay job bias nationwide at businesses with more than 15 workers, with some exceptions for religious organizations. But House Republicans have no interest in putting the bill on the floor. (Known as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, or ENDA, it’s currently 16 votes shy of guaranteed passage, in any event.)
In short, the gay rights community sees their “ask” as a clear parallel to the minimum wage and pay parity issues. They argue Congress isn’t ready to change the situation nationally, so Obama should at least start paving the way by helping out people working for or seeking employment from government contractors. Full story
November 19, 2013
His approval rating may have sunk to a new low, right there with the portion of cooperative spirit left in the Republican ranks, but President Barack Obama is gambling that he can somehow reverse a searing, if low-profile, loss from a year ago on a proposal with global implications and domestic political import.
The campaign will formally be joined Thursday morning, when Secretary of State John Kerry will come to Capitol Hill to press anew for Senate ratification of a treaty known as the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The pact, to which 138 other countries have committed, is written with the principal goal of extending around the word a system of accommodations very similar to what’s spelled out for this country in the Americans with Disabilities Act. That law, passed 23 years ago with overwhelming majorities of Republicans and Democrats alike, stands as the most recent important new civil rights law enacted with genuinely expansive bipartisan backing, and public support for it remains strong.
Obama is betting he can resurrect just enough of that that cross-party spirit to score an upset victory for the treaty on his second attempt. His team has not yet revealed what tactics he has up his sleeve to get there, but for two reasons it’s understandable why he’s trying. Full story
November 7, 2013
Senate Democrats, confident of passing legislation banning job discrimination against gay people, are readying their next assertive moves on three other issues important to their base:
- Abortion rights
- Minimum wage
- Federal judiciary
The goal is to divert as much attention as possible away from the problem-plagued Obamacare rollout at this formative stage of the 2104 campaign. Full story
November 4, 2013
Monday evening’s preliminary test vote on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act essentially guarantees that the most consequential civil rights bill of the year will pass the Senate with genuinely bipartisan support, very likely by the end of the week.
And so, even before the crucial 60th public supporter was locked down (from Republican Dean Heller of Nevada), proponents and opponents were decamping to the other side of the Capitol, believing a climactic debate in the House during the coming months may be moving toward inevitability.
Advocates of the bill — which would outlaw workplace discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people — are working to create something of a self-fulfilling prophecy: The metaphoric arc of history is bending so quickly toward this measure of justice that, by the time midterm Election Day arrives in one year, Republicans in close races will appear dangerously out of touch unless they have become part of turning ENDA into law.
Critics say they’re confident in their view of a very different political dynamic: Voters will remain much more worried about boosting the economy than about creating more costly, religious-freedom-impinging, and maybe even unnecessary, business regulations for the benefit of narrow and out-of-the-mainstream interests.
The House’s top two leaders have encapsulated those sentiments in recent days.
Speaker John A. Boehner “believes this legislation will increase frivolous litigation and cost American jobs,” his spokesman Michael Steele said Monday, reiterating the top Republican’s longstanding plans to keep the bill bottled up.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said she believed she could pressure the GOP hierarchy into applying a lesson from the expansion of the Violence Against Women Act, which Boehner ushered through the House this winter without a majority of his majority, concluding that doing otherwise would worsen the GOP’s potentially debilitating gender gap.
“We made it too hot to handle in the public. It had to come to the floor,” the California Democrat said of her party’s tactics. “We would hope that once burned, twice learned.”
Women are a majority of the electorate, and Democrats won their 2012 vote by 9 points. The 5 percent who told the exit pollsters they were gay, lesbian or bisexual preferred the Democrats by 54 points. Those are just two of the numbers that have prompted so much strategic soul-searching about softening the party’s image on social issues.
Proponents of ENDA will be concentrating their efforts on rounding up House co-sponsors, hoping momentum from the growing roster of supporters in the Senate (on top of significantly expanded congressional support for gay marriage in the past year) can create an absolute majority of committed “yes” votes in the House.
All but a dozen Democrats have signed on, and perhaps half of the holdouts may yet do so. At least four look destined to vote “no” because they cited the GOP arguments in opposing the somewhat narrower version of ENDA the House passed in 2007. They are John Barrow of Georgia, Mike McIntyre of North Carolina and Nick J. Rahall II of West Virginia — all looking at tight races in swing districts in 2014 — plus Daniel Lipinski of Illinois.
That breadth of Democratic support would still require advocates to find about two dozen Republican votes, or about 10 percent of members. That’s a tall order in a GOP conference where many more members are more concerned about primary challenges from their right than about winning general elections in the center. And Boehner maintains he won’t call up the bill, even if it secures enough commitments to pass.
That situation is why one of the tactics under increased discussion would be replicating what happened in 2010 with the repeal of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” restrictions on gays in the military: Working to attach ENDA to a must-pass bill with considerable Republican support, such as the annual defense authorization measure, and gambling that enough conservatives would rather swallow the gay rights language than imperil the Pentagon budget.
Only five Republicans are co-sponsoring the stand-alone bill so far. And only one of those is in a competitive race where social policy liberalism looks to work to his benefit: Chris Gibson, who’s running for a third term in a Hudson Valley and Catskill Mountains district of New York. President Barack Obama carried that district by 6 points. Gibson is running against Democrat Sean Eldridge, who is married to Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes and has spent much of his career as an advocate for marriage equality.
The other four GOP backers are centrist Jon Runyan of central New Jersey, libertarian-tinged Richard Hanna of upstate New York and two of the veteran moderates who voted for the narrower bill six years ago: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida and Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania.
Ten other Republicans remain from that group, including Budget chairman and 2008 vice presidential nominee Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Greg Walden of Oregon, House Administration Chairwoman Candice S. Miller of Michigan, incoming Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Rodney Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, and Boehner confidant Pat Tiberi of Ohio.
All of them have signaled opposition to this year’s iteration because it would extend federal job bias protections to transgender people, whom the 2007 bill did not mention in a calculated effort by its sponsors to boost the GOP vote total. While 35 Republicans voted “yes,” only a handful of the 25 Democrats who voted “no” said they did so to protest the bill’s lack of inclusiveness.
Among those Democrats was Maine’s Michael H. Michaud, who revealed he is gay Monday in an op-ed published by two of the state’s biggest newspapers — a response, he said, to the “whisper campaigns, insinuations and push-polls” of his opponents in next year’s race for governor.
Dropping the transgender provision now doesn’t look to be on the table, for several reasons: A bill including that clause is going to get decent GOP support in the Senate. Taking the language out won’t unlock a surge of GOP support in the House, because most of those members still view the bill as an affront to family values and free enterprise.
What’s more, the gay rights community now looks united behind a strategy of waiting for the comprehensive victory it is confident will come before too long.
October 27, 2013
The Senate’s partisan balance will move a tick to the left Thursday, when Cory Booker takes his seat as the 55th member of the Democratic caucus. And the New Jersey newcomer looks increasingly likely to make a bit of history befitting his national profile only a few days later, by providing an essential vote to advance the most important civil rights bill of the decade.
Legislation that would prohibit workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity is on the cusp of securing a filibuster-crushing supermajority of 60 senators — close enough that proponents are ready to call the question.
Four Republicans have announced their support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, along with 51 of the current Democrats. Another sure “yes” vote would come from Booker, who as mayor of Newark presided over the first same-sex marriage legally sanctioned by New Jersey, now the 14th state (plus the District of Columbia) where gay marriage is legal. “It’s about time,” he declared after the vows were exchanged a minute after midnight on Oct. 21.
That puts the vote count at 56. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Tom Harkin, the Iowa Democrat who has made the bill his top priority before retiring next year, is working with the leadership to arrange debate in early November — and he’s said he wouldn’t ask for floor time until he was confident of victory.
The targets for the final votes are relatively easy to identify. Eleven gay rights, civil rights and labor organizations have formed Americans for Workplace Opportunity, a coalition that’s spending $2.5 million this month to deploy 30 field organizers to stage 150 grass-roots events and lobby uncommitted senators in nine states.
One of the advocacy groups — the American Unity Fund, a creation of big-time Republican donor and hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer — has also hired former GOP Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota and former Rep. Tom. Reynolds of New York (who ran the National Republican Congressional Committee in 2005 and 2006) to lobby for ENDA.
The Republican targets are Rob Portman in Ohio, Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire, Dean Heller in Nevada, Patrick J. Toomey in Pennsylvania, Dan Coats in Indiana and Jeff Flake of Arizona, who voted in the House to pass a somewhat narrower version of ENDA six years ago. Full story
September 2, 2013
As the world was reminded anew last week, the last living bridge between the 1963 March on Washington and the Washington of today is John Lewis, a civil rights icon since the movement flowered in the early 1960s and Atlanta’s congressman since the late 1980s.
His brief remarks at the march’s 50th anniversary commemoration gained little attention, trumped easily by the symbolic power of having an African-American president offer the keynote at the Lincoln Memorial. But the day brought to mind what Lewis said on those steps half a century before — words reflecting the profound disenfranchisement black people felt then and pointing to how Democrats and Republicans have responded since.
“What political leader here can stand up and say, ‘My party is the party of principles’?” Lewis asked in 1963, noting how reviled promoters of racial oppression, as well as renowned champions of social justice, were prominent in both parties in Congress. “Where is our party? Where is the political party that will make it unnecessary to march on Washington?”
Fifty years on, the sprawling roster of unfinished business and unmet dreams lamented from the podium, and the tens of thousands gathered on the Mall, made clear that Washington isn’t close to salving all the anger and worry that gets people on their feet. But the tableau was an unmistakable reminder that only one party has made common cause with those marchers for most of the decades since.
Not a single elected Republican took to the lectern, though invitations to deliver remarks were extended to at least a half-dozen. Unintended or not, organizers were left with the impression that their causes had once again been disrespected by the GOP high command, which in theory had the organizational savvy, internal communications skills and political wherewithal to deliver at least one member of their party’s A list to the podium. Full story
July 17, 2013
There’s a ready temptation for those who dismiss any talk that Congress might agree on a way to revamp the Voting Rights Act.
Look no further, they might say, than the ideologically opposite lawmakers who have become the most visible players on the future of the law:
- John Lewis, the Atlanta Democrat and venerated hero of the civil rights movement, chosen to be the opening witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.
- Trent Franks, the outspoken social conservative from Arizona who cast one of only 33 votes against the current voting rights law. GOP leaders picked him to preside over Thursday’s House Judiciary session.
Making back-to-back images of Lewis and Franks shorthand for the inevitable impasse over rewriting the statute may be expedient for both sides’ partisan interests. But there’s still a long-shot chance it could prove premature.
If there’s a shot at a deal in the next year, it may rest with two other House members who are hardly as well-known to those who watch cable television news. They are Republicans who have quite different, but equally pressing, incentives for bolstering protections for voting. Full story
July 10, 2013
Updated 5:06 p.m. | It would have been unthinkable, maybe only a year ago, that legislation to expand gay civil rights would win more bipartisan support than legislation protecting college kids from a doubling of their student loan rates.
That’s what happened in the Senate this week. Tuesday morning, three Republicans joined all 12 Democrats on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee in voting for a federal prohibition on workplace harassment and job discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
Then, at lunchtime, a White House-backed proposal to keep the Stafford loan rate at 3.4 percent for another year was blocked on the floor after no Republicans lined up behind it.
The two roll calls underscore one of Washington’s most unexpected but important storylines of the year: the progress of people who aren’t heterosexual in overcoming the walls of government-countenanced discrimination. Congress now shares a starring role with the Supreme Court as the most important venue for their cause, with President Barack Obama squarely on board.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said the president was eager to sign the job bias prohibition because it “upholds America’s core values of fairness and equality.”
The HELP Committee’s 15-7 tally guarantees a majority of senators would vote for passage, and that support is at most a handful shy of the 60 senators necessary to overcome a filibuster by Republican cultural conservatives.
Advocates say those votes are within reach and that Majority Leader Harry Reid was prepared to put the bill on the floor as soon as passage is assured.
Doing so by early fall would allow a full year for lobbying the House, where passage at the moment looks to be a decided long shot. Speaker John A. Boehner has made clear that such consequential bills will advance only if they have proven support from a majority of his GOP majority.
The companion bill to what advanced in the Senate on Tuesday has just three GOP sponsors. Nine other Republicans voted “yes” when the House passed a somewhat narrower measure; it would have banned job discrimination based on sexual orientation but was silent on gender identity.
Still, public sentiment in favor of gay rights is expanding so rapidly that the political dynamic could be different by next summer. It’s not totally implausible that, even before the next election, advocates of gay rights may achieve their top legislative goal for the past two decades — something that’s arguably as important as the twin victories won at the high court two weeks ago.
“I think society is there and the things that have happened in the Supreme Court show we’re ready to move on in a way we haven’t moved on in the past,” said HELP Chairman Tom Harkin of Iowa, who has made enacting the anti-discrimination bill the top priority of his term before retiring next year.
The national discussion created by the California ban and Defense of Marriage Act cases helped prompt at least eight senators to reverse course and declare their support for gay marriage, creating a majority of 54 on that side of the debate now. The recent converts include Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mark S. Kirk of Illinois, who were joined by Orrin G. Hatch of Utah as the Republicans voting “yes” in committee.
The bill has one other GOP sponsor, Susan Collins of Maine, who’s not on the committee. Those four Republican votes, combined with those of the 51 Democratic co-sponsors, would bring the floor majority for the bill to 55.
Bill Nelson of Florida, who was among those who switched to support gay marriage this spring, is among the three Democrats who have not signed on. The others are Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, who are opposed to gay marriage (so is Democrat Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, but she’s a bill co-sponsor).
Lobbyists for the bill say they hope to reverse the current opposition of two Republicans: Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, who was among the eight GOP senators who voted to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law three years ago; and Rob Portman of Ohio, who has declared himself a supporter of gay marriage. They also hope to woo Jeff Flake of Arizona, who voted in the House for the 2007 version of the bill. That measure would not have extended to transgender workers, which the Senate bill does.
That legislation would prohibit businesses of 15 or more workers, as well as employment agencies and labor organizations, from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity when making hiring, firing, payment or promotion decisions. In a concession essential to winning any GOP votes, the bill has an exemption permitting churches and other religious organizations to make personnel decisions based on their faith tenets.
By the start of next month, same-sex marriages will be legal in 13 states and Washington, D.C. But 17 states and D.C. prohibit workplace discrimination based on either sexual orientation or gender identity — as do a majority of Fortune 500 companies.
The tide of national sentiment may once again drag Congress to the political place it needs to be.
June 26, 2013
It’s a remarkable coincidence that Newt Gingrich’s latest career move was announced Wednesday morning, moments before the Supreme Court struck down his most consequential legislative victory in the culture wars.
The pictures of Gingrich, just given top billing as the voice “on the right” of CNN’s revived shoutfest “Crossfire,” brought back a flood of recollections about the societal and political situation 17 years ago, when the star-crossed Defense of Marriage Act was written.
Those memories help explain why such a sweeping measure made its way into the federal law books so relatively easily back then and why such a heavy federal stamp of disapproval on an entire category of people has no chance of enactment now. Full story
The Defense of Marriage Act was the biggest legislative victory for social conservatives that Newt Gingrich was able to engineer as speaker of the House. This morning, an hour before that law was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the peripatetic Georgia Republican and failed presidential candidate announced he was leaving traditional politics altogether.
He’s going to become a full time television talking head.
CNN announced that it was resurrecting “Crossfire,” the progenitor of so many cable TV shows formatted to turn into screaming matches, and that Gingrich would anchor the “on the right” half of the table every weeknight starting this fall, along with S.E. Cupp, a conservative columnist who’s currently a regular on MSNBC. Full story
June 17, 2013
States may not demand proof of citizenship from people registering to vote, the Supreme Court ruled by a decisive 7-2 today.
The majority signaled it would also be ready to strike down any requirement tougher than what’s set out in the 1993 federal “motor voter” law, which was designed by Congress to simplify registration.
The decision, and the language behind it, is therefore a significant victory for mainstream Democrats, who want to expand access to the polls in part because they’re confident they’ll win most of the new voters. And it’s a defeat for mainstream Republicans, who express intense concern about the potential for election fraud but also know that polls show them doing poorly among groups underrepresented on the rolls — ethnic minorities, immigrants and older people. Full story
May 7, 2013
In the fortnight after the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in two same-sex-marriage cases, half a dozen senators announced they had changed their minds to support the right of gays and lesbians to wed.
The wave of turnabouts a month ago was important because it reinforced the notion that elected politicians were hurrying to get right with a seismic shift in public opinion — no matter what the justices decide to do.
But on a more tangible level, the fact that 54 senators now back marriage equality doesn’t have much real meaning. That’s simply because legislation to universalize gay marriage is nowhere near the realm of possibility.
That said, the size of that bloc could prove decisive for the fate of two measures that may show life this year.
If the justices rule, as the arguments signaled they might, and strike down a central section of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act — the part that, in effect, prevents federal agencies from recognizing same-sex marriages in states where they’re legal — it’s a sure bet that culturally conservative Republicans will begin pushing replacement legislation. But those 54 votes would be more than sufficient to prevent such a bill from ever getting through the Senate filibuster starting gate.
More important than that defensive block for many in the gay rights community is the potential help the 54 could give legislation banning most bias against homosexuals on the job. The Employment Non-Discrimination Act would extend federal employment discrimination protections under the 1964 Civil Rights Act to sexual orientation. Full story
April 5, 2013
So who will be No. 54? How long after that announcement will the roster of senators supporting gay marriage become filibuster-proof?
Predicting an answer to the first question requires looking more closely at the 43 potential Republican senators than at the list of just four Democrats who haven’t yet endorsed the concept of same-sex marriage. So does forecasting an answer to the second question, but on that one it’s safe to say it won’t happen before the next election.
Senate support for marriage equality surged into majority territory this week when Sen. Mark S. Kirk of Illinois became the second Republican backer of same-sex marriage; he was joined by five centrist Democrats, all of whom just won an election and are betting they’ll be squarely on the right side of history by the time they next face the voters in six years. The Democrats are third-term winners Bill Nelson of swing state Florida and Thomas R. Carper of Delaware; second-term survivor Bob Casey of bellwether Pennsylvania; and a pair of freshmen who scored upsets in GOP states, North Dakota’s Heidi Heitkamp and Indiana’s Joe Donnelly.
But the notion that a political tipping point is at hand — and that a wave of changed minds and modernized hearts will crest at the Capitol before the Supreme Court reveals itself on the gay marriage question — is swiftly put to rest by a look at the senators who remain either uncommitted or publicly on the other side. Full story
March 25, 2013
For gays and lesbians, the marriage cases being debated at the Supreme Court this week hold the potential for either a landmark expansion or a painful contraction of their civil rights, some narrower changes, or really nothing meaningful at all. But for members of Congress — Republicans, in particular — their political lives will be shaped profoundly by whether the justices go big, go small or essentially stay home on the issue.
The case with the broader constitutional, as well as political reach, being argued Tuesday challenges the California prohibition on same-sex marriage known as Proposition 8. The arguments Wednesday, about the constitutionality of the law denying federal benefits to legally married gay people, hold additional import for Congress as an institution and for every Republican running in 2014. This is especially true for those who voted to enact that law 17 years ago, those who pressed the House to take the legal lead in the current case, and those with statewide or national dreams.
A ruling upholding Proposition 8 would provide the most culturally conservative wing of the GOP a huge shot of momentum for its goal of keeping the party the bulwark against attacks on marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. It would also stand to trigger a wave of ballot initiatives on both sides of that issue, complicating the lives of dozens of congressional candidates — especially in California, where advocates of lifting the ban will be counted on to ask voters to do what the court did not. Full story
March 15, 2013
Whether he wants to or not, Rob Portman has just become a leading player in the Republican Party’s socially moderate camp.
He says he’s ambivalent about embracing his new role, but the moment looks right for him on two fronts: There’s an unexpected opening in his schedule, and the party needs all the help it can get from its elder statesmen in catching up to the people it would presume to lead.
On Friday Portman became the first current GOP senator to take the liberal side in one of the defining social issues of our time, declaring he was converting to an embrace of same-sex marriage because one of his sons told him he is gay. In doing so, he created one of the biggest political and cultural Rorschach tests of the year for the in-search-of-its-new-self GOP — from the floor of CPAC to the bar at the Capitol Hill Club to the offices of the Log Cabin Republicans.
But for Ohio’s junior senator, the enlightened self-interest seems clear. Full story