Voice For Liberty

Tag: Elections

  • Few vote in primary elections

    As Kansas moves towards the August 3rd primary election there’s a great deal of interest, at least among a certain segment of the population, in the outcome of the election.

    I say a segment, because history shows that few people vote in primary elections. A relatively small number of voters has a large say in who represents the parties in the November general election.

    In the 2008 primary election in Sedgwick County, 36,724 out of 241,052 registered voters cast ballots. That’s 15.2 percent.

    In the 2006 primary, 37,617 out of 229,942 registered voters, or 16.4 percent, voted.

    My analysis of the Sedgwick County voter file shows that 20.4 percent of voters might be considered likely primary voters, meaning, in this case, that they voted in one or both of the most recent August primary elections. The figure for Democrats was 21.4 percent, and 32.4 percent for Republicans.

    The Libertarian and Reform parties do not hold primary elections, and unaffiliated voters generally don’t vote in primaries. Only 2.6 percent unaffiliated voters voted in one or both of the most recent August primaries. That’s why the percent of all voters that are likely primary voters is lower than both the Democrat and Republican figures.

  • Wichita, other city elections on horizon

    Next spring Wichita and other cities in Kansas will hold elections for city council members, school board members, and perhaps mayor.

    The filing deadline for candidates is January 25, 2011 at noon. The primary election is on March 1, and the general election is April 5.

    These elections are non-partisan, meaning that candidates don’t run as members of a political party. Instead, the top two vote-getters in the primary advance to the general election.

    The election calendar is a problem. Kansans presently have their political attention focused on our August primary, in which there are many hotly-contested battles. After that comes the November general election, which is likely to feature several races that generate intense interest and participation. Then comes the Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday season, when few want to think about politics.

    Right after that is the filing deadline for city elections, and then quickly, the primary and general elections. It’s a schedule designed for incumbents.

    In Wichita, there are three city council positions and the mayorship that are up for election. In district two, (click here for a map of districts), which is primarily the east side of Wichita, incumbent council member Sue Schlapp can’t run again because of the law limiting council members and the mayor to two four-year terms.

    In district four — south and southwest Wichita — Paul Gray has also served two terms and can’t run again.

    In district five — west and northwest Wichita — incumbent council member and Vice Mayor Jeff Longwell is in his first term and can run again if he chooses. He hasn’t revealed his plans publicly.

    Mayor Carl Brewer is also in his first term and can run again. I’ve not heard him reveal his plans.

    So far three candidates have publicly declared their intent to run. Former Executive Director of the Sedgwick County Democratic Party Jason Dilts has been actively running for the fourth district position for several months.

    In April securities broker and tea party activist Lynda Tyler announced her intent to run in district five against Longwell.

    Last week Galichia Heart Hospital CEO Steve Harris threw his hat in the ring for city council district two.

    There are others — well-known and not — that are considering running.

    Expect these issues to dominate the campaigns: First, downtown development — especially how to pay for it — is likely to be a dominant topic, as the Goody Clancy final plan is scheduled to be completed this fall. We can expect tremendous amounts of campaign funds to be directed to those candidates who favor taxpayer support and subsidy for politically-favored developers.

    As many Wichita political and civic leaders speak admiringly of the city sales tax that has funded downtown redevelopment in Oklahoma City, we might even see a sales tax question on the primary or general election ballot.

    The issue of taxpayer-funded economic development — whether downtown or elsewhere — may receive discussion too. Both Longwell and Brewer believe that Wichita doesn’t have enough “tools in the toolbox” for dishing out subsidy and tax breaks.

    Water is likely to be an issue too, as Wichita’s water rates are going up.

  • Olathe Republican straw poll produces wins by Tiahrt, Yoder

    Yesterday’s Olathe Republican Party picnic featured a straw poll that provided insight into statewide and local races as Kansas nears its August 3rd primary. The annual event is very popular, and this year 430 people paid the $2 fee to participate in the straw poll.

    Martin Hawver, dean of Kansas Statehouse reporters, describes the importance of the event: “The picnic/poll has been closely watched in recent years because Olathe is a conservative bastion and it tends to bring Republican politics into a comfortably conservative venue from which the party’s internal strife can be measured.”

    Voters vote only once in the poll.

    In the straw poll for the Republican Party nomination for United States Senate from Kansas, Todd Tiahrt outpolled Jerry Moran 315 to 112.

    Tom Little of Mound City and Bob Londerholm of Overland Park, little-known candidates who filed close to the June 10th deadline, each received two votes.

    Tiahrt’s numbers were undoubtedly boosted by the 69 folks who made a 178-mile bus trip from Wichita to Olathe courtesy of the Tiahrt campaign. Subtracting these leaves Tiahrt with a still-large victory margin of 246 to 112. These results are a boost to the Tiahrt campaign, as it is thought that northeast Kansas is a key battleground in this contest. Hawver’s caveat that Olathe is a conservative bastion must be kept in mind, as Tiahrt makes an explicit appeal to conservative voters.

    Both Tiahrt and Moran — along with many members of their campaign staffs — attended the event. Moran had to leave the picnic before the speechmaking started to attend to his mother, who was recently diagnosed with leukemia. Kansas Senator Karin Brownlee, an Olathe Republican, spoke in Moran’s place. Tiahrt spoke in person, and his speech was enthusiastically received by the audience.

    It is commonly thought that the winner of this August Republican primary election will cruise to victory in the November general election.

    In the contest for race for the Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the third district of Kansas, the straw poll showed these results:

    Kevin Yoder 156
    Patricia Lightner 117
    John Rysavy 55
    Dan Gilyeat 52
    Jean Ann Uvodich 23
    Craig McPherson 7
    Garry Klotz 5
    Dave King 0
    Jerry Malone 0

    The winner of the primary will face the winner of the Democratic party primary, either Stephene Moore (wife of current officeholder Dennis Moore) or Thomas Scherer.

    In these straw polls, it is common for campaigns to pay the poll fee ($2 for this poll) for their supporters. In this case, the Yoder campaign went a little further, distributing free coupons that, when turned into a Yoder campaign representative, would let a family avoid paying the $10 admission fee. It is not known how many of these tickets were used, and other campaigns may have done the same.

  • In Kansas, Sarah Palin chooses Todd Tiahrt

    Yesterday former Alaska governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin endorsed Todd Tiahrt for the Republican Party nomination for United States Senate from Kansas.

    Tiahrt’s opponent is Jerry Moran. It is commonly thought that the winner of this August Republican primary election will cruise to victory in the November general election.

    Palin’s endorsement, which can be read on her Facebook page, reads as follows:

    I’m happy to endorse Todd Tiahrt’s campaign to be the next U.S Senator from Kansas. Todd is a protector of our Constitution, a pro-family, pro-Second Amendment Commonsense Conservative who has never voted for a tax increase and has fought to end the wasteful spending coming out of Washington. He didn’t just stand on the sidelines complacently, but instead actually battled against the bailouts, the debt-ridden stimulus spending, the cap-and-tax energy schemes, and Obamacare. In fact, remember on the day Obamacare was being debated, Todd Tiahrt was on the House floor all day working to defeat it, and he’s helped lead the charge to repeal and replace Obamacare the moment it was signed into law. We can count on Todd to take on the liberal spending agenda of the Obama administration and fight for lower taxes, more individual freedom, and less government intrusion.

    At a meet-and-greet opportunity yesterday evening, Vicki Tiahrt, wife of the candidate, said the campaign was pleased with the endorsement.

    Palin’s endorsement has been a benefit to most candidates she has endorsed. A recent Time Magazine article noted that “her record in tightly contested races [is] 8-3 overall this midterm election year.”

    The most recent public poll in this race is from May, and showed Moran leading by 52 percent to 29 percent.

  • Kansas fourth district Congressional poll shows big change, surprise

    Updated and expanded since last night’s story.

    A just-released poll shows that the race for the Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas has changed dramatically since the last poll in February.

    The February poll showed Wichita businessman Wink Hartman with a large lead over Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo, Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf, and Kansas Senator Dick Kelsey, who has since withdrawn due to family health problems. Wichita businessman Jim Anderson was further behind.

    Now Pompeo has edged Hartman slightly, polling 39 percent to Hartman’s 37 percent. These two candidates have separated themselves from the rest of the field and are in a virtual tie, as the margin separating the two is well within the poll’s margin of sampling error of 4.1 percent.

    The poll indicates that only eight percent of voters are undecided, a low number compared to other Kansas polls. In a poll conducted at the same time for the Kansas first district Republican nomination, 16 percent are undecided. In a May poll for the Kansas Republican Party nomination for United States Senate, 15 percent were undecided.

    This low number of undecided voters is not good news for the Anderson and Schodorf campaigns, as both have a lot of ground to make up in a short time to catch the two leaders. The primary election is August 3rd, with advance ballots starting to be mailed on July 14th. The deadline for registering to vote or changing party affiliation is July 19th.

    Some interesting results from the pool include these observations:

    For voters self-identified as “conservative,” Pompeo leads Hartman 41 percent to 40 percent. For “liberal” voters it was Pompeo over Hartman by 33 percent to 20 percent. Schodorf, who is set off from the other candidates by her moderate voting record and positions, could garner only 18 percent of these self-identified liberal voters. 20 percent were undecided.

    Among women, Schodorf increases her vote from nine percent to 11 percent. In this category, Hartman leads Pompeo 37 percent to 35 percent.

    For voters who have a favorable opinion of the tea party movement, Pompeo outpolled Hartman 42 percent to 39 percent. Anderson, who has described himself as the tea party candidate, trailed with seven percent.

    Pompeo edged Hartman among pro-life voters and gun owners by three and four percentage points respectively.

    A question this poll can’t answer is whether Pompeo’s upward trajectory is likely to continue. The Hartman campaign started advertising on television early, which surely contributed to his lead in the February poll. By the time of that poll, it was estimated by one source that he had spent over $200,000 on television advertising.

    The Pompeo campaign has not lacked for money. Campaign finance reports for March 31 showed that it had raised $606,274 and had $432,611 on hand. (At that time the Hartman campaign had spent $307,871.) If the Pompeo campaign’s strategy was to conserve funds and wait until closer to the election to start television advertising, the strategy appears to be working.

    It has been thought that the best chance for a Schodorf victory was for her to take advantage of the two characteristics that separate her from the other candidates — her gender and her moderate or liberal positions. (The recent entry of Paij Rutschman in the race provides another alternative for voters wanting to vote for a female candidate, but Rutschman polled only one percent.)

    But with Schodorf barely increasing her total among woman voters, and trailing both Hartman and Pompeo among self-described liberal voters, it appears that this strategy is not working.

    A surprise in this poll is on the Democratic side. In this contest Raj Goyle has been presumed to be the sure victor, as his campaign has raised, by now, surely over one million dollars and is receiving national attention. His opponent, Robert Tillman (no website can be found), is running for office for the first time. He hadn’t filed any campaign finance reports as of the end of March, presumably because he had raised little or no money.

    But the poll shows Goyle with only 42 percent of the vote, and Tillman with 32 percent. 26 percent are undecided. This is an unexpectedly close result.

    The candidates for the Republican Party nomination (and their campaign websites) are Wichita businessman Jim Anderson, Wichita businessman Wink Hartman, Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo, Latham engineer Paij Rutschman, and Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf.

    Kansas fourth Congressional district poll results

  • Kansas fourth district Congressional candidates answer individual questions

    Last week’s forum of candidates for the Republican Party nomination for United States Congress from the fourth district of Kansas featured a set of questions tailored individually for each of the four candidates who participated.

    The candidates for this nomination (and their campaign websites) are Wichita businessman Jim Anderson, Wichita businessman Wink Hartman, Wichita businessman Mike Pompeo, and Kansas Senator Jean Schodorf. Election filing records maintained by the Kansas Secretary of State indicate that Paij Rutschman of Latham has filed for the Republican Party nomination, but little is known about this candidate at this time, and Rutschman did not appear at this event.

    Hartman answered his question first. The question and his response are covered in my article Hartman state tax issue still a little bit murky.

    Anderson’s question asked when was the last time he voted in any primary election. Anderson answered “2008, I believe.” He added that “the primary is the most is the most important election” and that he would defeat Raj Goyle in the general election. He asked the audience to examine the candidates, their history, what they’ve done, and how they’ve conducted themselves.

    He used the opportunity to recommend voters choose a candidate who will follow the Constitution, “the one in my pocket that they’re not using right now in Washington.”

    Schodorf was asked about the recently-passed tough Arizona immigration law. Would you support such a law? Schodorf said that she understood why Arizona enacted the law, saying Arizona was forced to do it due to the federal government’s inaction. She said the federal government should have been enforcing a strong border. She said we need to help Mexico keep the border safe so that guns, drugs, people, and money do not come here. She told the audience she has voted for tough laws against the trafficking of illegal immigrants.

    She added that she supports using the National Guard to secure the border.

    Pompeo’s question concerned a Wichita Eagle article covering a Washington fundraiser for him that was attended by lobbyists. Would lobbyist contributions affect your voting, and how would we know?

    Pompeo noted that he had four times as many Kansas contributors as the other candidates combined, a source of pride for him. While he said he has accepted contributions from political action committees, other candidates also sought such contributions, but were not successful in obtaining them. He cited his endorsement by the Kansans for Life PAC, which was sought by the other pro-life candidates for the nomination. He also mentioned his endorsement by the Club for Growth, which was sought by one of the other candidates, he said.

    In rebuttal, Anderson said that yes, PAC money will affect decisions and votes, that PACs want favors from legislators.

    Analysis

    In checking the candidates’ responses, I was not able to verify that Anderson voted in the August 2008 primary election in Sedgwick County. In an email response to my question, Anderson wrote that he “truly wasn’t sure if I had voted in the 2008 Primary as I was deeply involved in opening my business, PostNet.” He’s right: listening to the recording of the forum, he was hesitant in his answer.

    Regarding contributions from political action committees, I would recommend that voters consider the purpose or goal of each PAC. If the goal of the PAC is to increase taxes and spending — particularly when for the exclusive benefit of its members — voters should take that into account if they are interested in fiscally conservative candidates. Other PACs and organizations like the Club for Growth seek growth, prosperity, and economic freedom for everyone equally.

  • Club for Growth gives slight nod to Tiahrt over Moran

    Of the groups that analyze legislators and their votes, the Club for Growth produces a scorecard that focuses on votes relating to economic growth.

    The Club for Growth describes itself as “a national network of thousands of pro-growth Americans, from all walks of life, who believe that prosperity and opportunity come through economic freedom. We work to promote public policies that encourage a high growth economy and a swift return to America’s founding principles primarily through legislative involvement, issue advocacy, research, training and educational activity.”

    Each year the Club for Growth produces a scorecard for both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate that ranks members on their votes, based on the Club’s judgment of which votes distinguish between legislators who believe in pro-growth policies and those who don’t.

    The Club warns of limitations of scorecards like these, including my own Kansas Economic Freedom Index: “A study of roll call votes on the floor of the House and Senate and legislative actions is just that. It can not account for a lawmaker’s work in committee, advocacy in his party’s caucus meetings, and effectiveness as a leader in advocating pro-growth policies.”

    That caveat aside, let’s look at how the Club ranked members of the Kansas House delegation, particularly Todd Tiahrt and Jerry Moran. These two are candidates for the Republican party nomination for the U.S. Senate. It is commonly thought that the winner of this August Republican primary election will cruise to victory in the November general election.

    One of the themes in the election — promoted especially by the Tiahrt campaign — is who is the most conservative candidate. So the Club for Growth scorecard is an important measure for someone promoting conservative, pro-growth credentials.

    On the Club’s scorecard for 2009, Tiahrt earned a rating of 90 percent, which ranks him 64th among members of the U.S. House according to Club for Growth’s criteria.

    Moran scored 85 percent, which ranks 94th.

    (A higher rating means more votes in alignment with the Club’s positions. Other Kansas House members are the second district’s Lynn Jenkins, a Republican from Topeka, who scored 87 percent, ranking 83rd, and Democrat Dennis Moore of the third district in northeast Kansas, who scored four percent with a ranking of 297th. On the Senate rankings, Sam Brownback scored 85 percent, ranking 24th among the 100 members of the Senate. Pat Roberts scored 93 percent, ranking 19th.)

    Is this difference between Tiahrt and Moran significant? That question, of course, must be answered by each voter. To help voters decide, I examined the Club’s scorecard and listed the votes where the two Congressmen voted differently. This is not a comprehensive examination of their voting records that would find all votes that were different. It only looks at the votes in the Club’s scorecard that are different.

    The Club for Growth’s scorecard looked at 24 votes. Following are the votes where Tiahrt and Moran voted differently. Information on the bills is from Govtrack.us.

    H.R. 12: Paycheck Fairness Act
    “To amend the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide more effective remedies to victims of discrimination in the payment of wages on the basis of sex, and for other purposes.”

    Moran voted in favor of the Club’s position, while Tiahrt was absent for this vote. On a scale of one to ten that the Club uses to gauge the relative importance of votes, this bill was given a weight of one, meaning that it was judged relatively unimportant, relative to others.

    H.R. 2: Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009
    “To amend title XXI of the Social Security Act to extend and improve the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and for other purposes.”

    Tiahrt voted in favor of the Club’s position, while Moran voted against it. This bill was weighted four on the scale of one to ten of relative importance.

    H.R. 3435: Making supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program
    “Makes emergency supplemental appropriations of $2 billion for FY2009 and FY2010 to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) for the Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Program (Cash for Clunkers Program)”

    Moran voted for the Club’s position, while Tiahrt voted against it. This bill was weighted two on the one to ten scale of relative importance.

    H. Res. 806: Providing for the concurrence by the House in the Senate amendment to H.R. 1035, with an amendment
    “Sets forth the rule for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1035 (Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy Amendments Act of 2009)”

    Tiahrt voted in favor of the Club’s position, while Moran voted against it. This bill was weighted one on the scale of one to ten of relative importance. The meaning of this resolution is obscure.

    H.R. 3639: Expedited CARD Reform for Consumers Act of 2009
    “To amend the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 to establish an earlier effective date for various consumer protections, and for other purposes.”

    Tiahrt voted in favor of the Club’s position, while Moran voted against it. This bill was weighted two on the scale of one to ten of relative importance.

    These are the only votes that differ between the two candidates. The Club’s scorecard also takes into account other factors, such as points awarded by the National Taxpayers Union (Tiahrt earned five; Moran three), and points awarded for not sponsoring anti-trade bills (Tiahrt and Moran both earned four points)

    The scorecard also includes points awarded based on the Club’s RePORK Card, which scores legislators on how they voted on legislation that the Club considers to be pork-barrel spending. Tiahrt’s score of 29 percent earned him zero points, while Moran’s score of 96 percent earned two points.

    The scorecard also separately considered H.R. 1321: Healthy Americans Act, “To provide affordable, guaranteed private health coverage that will make Americans healthier and can never be taken away.” Tiahrt and Moran voted the same on this measure.

    While Tiahrt scores higher overall than Moran on the Club’s scorecard, it is not a consistent trend across all votes and measures.

  • Kansas judicial retention election attracts attention

    Kansas Watchdog’s Earl Glynn reports on the fund-raising and politics surrounding Kansas Supreme Court Justice Carol A. Beier and the retention election she faces this year. Normally these judicial retention elections are not newsworthy, although perhaps they should be. This year’s retention election for Justice Beier, however, is attracting attention.

    What’s interesting to me is the state’s legal establishment rallying around a justice that it had an outsized role in selecting. Kansas University law professor Stephen J. Ware was researched and written extensively on how the method of judicial selection in Kansas concentrates power in the hands of the state’s lawyers: “Kansas is extreme — no other state gives the bar as much power.” See Kansas is at the undemocratic extreme in judicial selection for more about Ware’s work on this topic.

    Questions about new 527 PACs, $25,000 loan unanswered. Groups support Supreme Justice Beier?

    A political battle may be brewing over the retention of certain members of the Kansas Supreme Court in the November general election, and especially the retention of Justice Carol Beier.

    Two Wichita-based political action committees formed in recent months, but directors and donors are unwilling to answer questions, including one about a loan. One group spent nearly $25,000 more than it raised.

    Based on the political history of the donors and the vendors, the new PACs appear to be a response to the “Fire Beier” campaign announced in January by Kansans for Life.

    Continue reading at Questions about new 527 PACs, $25,000 loan unanswered. Groups support Supreme Justice Beier?

  • In Kansas, some campaigns for Congress face charges of hypocrisy

    A guest editorial by Sue C.

    I have been active in the Kansas Tea Party Movement since March of 2009. The basic tenants of it are attractive to me. The emphasis on freedom, liberty, personal responsibility, and love of the Constitution is inspiring. The tea party movement is supposed to be “a new politics” — one of honesty, integrity, and a return to traditional values.

    Unfortunately I have been observing a disquieting hypocrisy in the movement of late, especially in campaigns that said they were going to run clean, honest races. Many are acting like the same Washington politicians they have been critical of. Some of these campaigns are staffed with Tea Party members, hoping to support honorable candidates. Many are my friends.

    I will outline a few examples of the “hypocrisy” I have observed, and let you decide for yourself if you agree with me or not. I choose to leave off names. My observations are from campaigns in the in the Kansas first district, Kansas third district, and Kansas fourth district (KS-01, KS-03, and KS-04).

    • Campaign staff constantly complain that their competitors are flush with money from “big donors.” Yet when asked if their campaigns would take the same money, if offered to them, I was told, “Oh, yes!”
    • Various campaigns have told me that they are very upset about all the endorsements their competitors are getting. Then in the next sentence I am hearing about their attempts to solicit endorsements from similar groups and individuals. One campaign was even encouraging their volunteers to start up blogs, and give the campaign “endorsements” from them.
    • One campaign staffer was demonizing the political action committee (PAC) donations another campaign was getting, even going so far as to call them “Washington Insiders.” Come to find out, that same campaign had applied for many of the same PAC monies and endorsements! They expressed anger to me that “their guy” didn’t get the nod. These same campaigns are continuing to this day to try and get money from various PACs not yet committed to a candidate.
    • The candidates that are getting PAC money feel that they need to minimize these contributions, which saddens me. The truth is PACs are important in politics: Individuals with similar value systems combine their resources in an effort to help get candidates, who share their same beliefs, elected.
    • “We’re not politicians!” This is a constant refrain in so many of the statewide races, and it makes me laugh every time I hear it! These candidates have been kissing the babies, shaking the hands, working the phones for donations, and marching in the parades along with all the other candidates for over a year now. I have to disagree with this refrain: They are all politicians now.
    • Tea Party “leaders” are signing up every Conservative they can find to run for precinct committeemen and committeewomen positions, and encouraging all their friends to get in local races. This is at the same time they lament all the “career” politicians who worked their way up through the party through this very same method.
    • Some campaigns are saying “We hate lawyers.” The truth is that all these candidates, if elected, will have to hire staffs full of lawyers! The House and Senate bills are written by them. Reality needs to set in: lawyers have a vital place in politics. Folks on the Right will need really good ones to help reverse the harmful laws the current Congress has already passed.
    • Quite a few blogs and emails have been written lately which are attacking candidates, starting gossip, and spreading rumors. This is definitely a sad trend that I am seeing. It is horrible to see people I had previously admired practice this destructive behavior. Personal responsibility and integrity are being sacrificed in attempts to advance a political campaign.

    Although I could share many other examples, I will now stop. One thing that I have realized is that if we want the Tea Party Movement to continue to inspire citizens, we will need to pull back from the trend toward hypocrisy that I have just outlined. Otherwise the movement will fail. And so too, might our country.