Voice For Liberty

Tag: Republican Party

  • Tiahrt, Moran vote ratings show slight difference

    The campaign for the Republican Party nomination for the United States Senate from Kansas between Todd Tiahrt of Goddard and Jerry Moran of Hays is making national news. The issue is over who is the most conservative. A new article in U.S. News and Word Report states: “Both Tiahrt and Moran have portrayed themselves as fiscal conservatives, favoring lower taxes and less spending by the federal government.”

    The Washington insider publication The Hill recently wrote of the “internecine fight for the GOP Kansas Senate.”

    Merriam-Webster defines internecine as “of, relating to, or involving conflict within a group,” which might describe any contested political primary election. But this one is turning in to something resembling the other definition given: “marked by slaughter: deadly; especially: mutually destructive.”

    Perhaps the reason why this campaign is turning negative is that on many issues, there just isn’t much difference between the two candidates and their voting records. Looking at vote rankings from several sources can help us see this.

    One respected source of vote ratings is National Journal. Some Tiahrt supporters are using a chart of National Journal vote ratings on Facebook, showing their approval of Tiahrt’s performance in these ratings.

    Tiahrt and Moran vote ratings from National Journal

    The chart shows Tiahrt with a more conservative vote rating in years past, but converging to nearly identical values last year. The chart shows Moran moving in the more conservative direction, while Tiahrt, after three years of less-conservative ratings, moving to a more conservative rating.

    National Journal produces three ratings for each legislator, based on votes on economic, social, and foreign policy issues. The number I plotted in the chart is the average of the three values for each year. In its own method of producing composite scores for 2009, National Journal gives Tiahrt a score of 85.3, and Moran gets 84.3.

    In terms of where they rank in order, Tiahrt is the 54th most conservative voter, and Moran is the 64th.

    For 2009, the average composite score for Republican members of the U.S. House was 79.4, ranging from 57.8 to 94. So while Tiahrt and Moran rank as more conservative than average, neither are anywhere near the top, in terms of conservative voting according to National Journal.

    Other organizations produce vote ratings too, such as the American Conservative Union. In these ratings, Tiahrt and Moan have the same, or nearly same score in all years except 2007, when Tiahrt had a more conservative rating. For the period shown, Tiahrt’s average score is 92.5, and Moran’s is 91.3.

    Tiahrt and Moran vote ratings from American Conservative Union

    From Americans for Tax Reform, we find a mixed picture. For the period shown, the average rating for Tiahrt is 94.6, and for Moran, 90.3.

    Tiahrt and Moran vote ratings from American for Tax Reform

    Do these relatively small differences in vote ratings amount to a true distinction between the candidates? While Tiahrt generally earns the more conservative rating, the differences are so small that voters will want to make sure they take into account other factors when they decide who to support.

  • At forum, Kansas Secretary of State candidates have different attitudes regarding voter fraud

    Last week’s meeting of the Sedgwick County Republican Party featured a forum with the three candidates seeking the Republican party nomination for Kansas Secretary of State. The candidates and links to their campaign websites are J.R. Claeys, Elizabeth “Libby” Ensley, and Kris Kobach.

    During the forum, the different attitudes of the candidates towards the extent of voter fraud in Kansas and the measures that should be taken to combat it — such as photo ID and proof of citizenship — became apparent.

    In his opening remarks, Kobach mentioned his role in helping write the recently-past Arizona immigration law. He said during the past 10 years, at both the United States Department of Justice and privately, he’s worked to help cities and states enforce the law. His goal for the next four years, should he be elected Secretary of State, would be to help Kansas restore the rule of law in its elections.

    He said the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has a “whole division designed for immigrants’ rights.” He said that the ACLU will be the “first to run into the courtroom if we try to pass a photo ID law in Kansas.” He also mentioned the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) as another group involved in the immigration fight, and it has sued Arizona over its law.

    (A photo ID law would require voters to identify themselves with a photo ID, such as a drivers license, when they vote.)

    Kobach said that both of these organizations are willing to sell out the rule of law in order to gain political power. Democrats, he said, view illegal aliens as a source of votes, and that is why Democrats always oppose photo ID laws. “In my definition, that is the highest form of corruption. That’s corruption, not for money, but for power.”

    Kobach said that he is in favor of a photo ID law. The problem, he said, is making a law stick, as these laws are challenged by the ACLU wherever they are passed. As a constitutional law professor, he believes he can write a bill that will survive a court challenge. He said he’ll defend the law, “because nothing makes my day like a lawsuit against the ACLU.”

    Kansas must also prosecute voter fraud, he said. He mentioned a report from the secretary of state’s office where 11 counties in Kansas where voter fraud was reported, but there were no state prosecutions. He said the problem is that when prosecutions are forwarded to the local county attorney, prosecutions do not result because of lack of resources or wrong incentives, and in some cases, lack of political will. He proposes parallel jurisdiction, where either the local county attorney or the Secretary of State could proceed with prosecution.

    Claeys, in his opening remarks, said he had worked for the Republican National committee as a fundraiser, as communications director for the National Small Business Association, and CEO of the National Association of Government Contractors. He also served as an election observer in Bolivia and El Salvador. These countries recently implemented voter security measures.

    Claeys said that photo ID, besides improving the security of voting, actually streamlines the voting process and reduces the training needed for both voters and election workers.

    He said there are 600 statutory duties for the Secretary of State, many having to do with small business. “It is the filing center for the state,” and it is important that businesses be served efficiently and well by that office. Increasing fees and regulations, he added, acts as a tax on business, and he said he will work to keep fees and costs low.

    Ensley’s opening remarks told of the importance of the Secretary of State, noting that “every single business in the state of Kansas touches the Secretary of State’s office.” She said she had worked in the Secretary of State’s office for 11 years, and then for 18 years as the Shawnee County Election Commissioner. Because of that, she said she has the endorsement of the last three Kansas Secretaries of State.

    She said she has been watchful for election fraud during her years as election commissioner, and has provided the evidence that has resulted in the conviction of 12 election criminals.

    She said an important issue to her is military voting, saying that these voters do not have the same rights as local voters. They are not allowed to vote for precinct committee officials or for local ballot questions, for example. She said this needs to be changed.

    Questioning from the audience included a question whether the candidates would pledge to support whoever wins the August primary election. All answered yes.

    Another question mentioned nursing homes, where it was alleged by the questioner that voting fraud is taking place. Kobach said that the “stories are legion” about what happens in nursing homes. He said this type of voter fraud is difficult to detect. But once someone is prosecuted, this will discourage others from contemplating this type of voter fraud.

    Ensley suggested that any suspected voter fraud be reported to local officials. She mentioned a recent Kansas law that allows election officials to work with nursing homes to delver ballots directly to voters, and assist them with voting if requested.

    Claeys agreed that prosecutions would serve as a deterrent to others.

    One questioner noted that several recent holders of the Secretary of State’s office have run for, or aspired to run for, Kansas governor. Do you have political ambitions beyond Secretary of State? Claeys and Ensley answered no. Kobach answered that the future is difficult to predict, but that he probably would not occupy that office for 16 years, as Ron Thornburgh would have if he served out his last term.

    In my question, I asked about the claim of the Wichita Eagle’s Rhonda Holman, based on evidence from then-Secretary of State Thornburgh, that voter fraud in Kansas is not a significant problem.

    Kobach said that there is voter fraud, it is a problem, and he doesn’t know why Holman doesn’t believe it is a problem.

    Ensley said that Kobach is referring to alleged voter fraud. She said she’s done statistical research on aliens registering to vote. She identified the six counties in Kansas that are required to do bilingual ballots and asked these county clerks — these are the election officials in these counties — about the situation in their county. She said that each clerk said that they watch out for illegal registrations and voting, but that it is not a significant problem in their counties.

    She said she compared the proportion of the population that is registered to vote statewide with the same figure in these six counties. If a large number of ineligible registrations was a problem, these counties should have a higher than average number. She found that these counties had a lower proportion of registered voters than the stateside average, which lead her to believe that registration and voting by aliens is not a problem.

    She said that having to prove citizenship in order to vote would lead to lower voter turnout by eligible voters, and she is not in favor of requirements to prove citizenship. Displaying her tattered birth certificate, she described how it would be difficult for many citizens to obtain their birth certificate in order to prove they are citizens and eligible to vote. Her contention that requirements to prove citizenship creates more barriers to Americans than it prevents aliens from registering to vote was greeted with disapproval from the audience.

    Claeys mentioned the Arizona voter law — which he said he favors — which requires proof of citizenship, with several ways to provide proof. He added that even a small amount of voter fraud is important. “Anytime someone votes who’s not supposed to be, they’re taking your vote away.”

    Kobach added that courts have not agreed that requirements to produce citizenship documents such as birth certificates are too much of a burden. He added that these requirements apply to only newly-registered voters, not currently registered voters. He also produced several reasons as to why Ensley’s survey of voter registration rates in counties may not be valid.

    Later questioning brought out a distinction between “voter ID” and “photo ID.” Voter ID can take many forms, such as a utility bill showing a voter’s name and address. Kobach and Claeys are in favor of requiring a state-issued photo ID, while Ensley said voter ID is sufficient.

    Some in the audience asked questions that showed they believed a photo ID was more secure than other forms of ID, but Ensley pointed to easy availability of fake IDs, both photo and other.

    — —

    Eagle editorialist Holman’s op-ed from last May contained this statement: “Fraudulent voting, particularly by an illegal immigrant, makes no sense, because there is little to nothing to gain by the individual voter — while the potential punishment is severe.” (“Beware of claims of voter fraud,” May 28, 2009 Wichita Eagle)

    This curious claim by Holman — that there is little to gain by individuals when they vote– might make anyone wonder why they should make an effort to vote.

  • Kansas is a Republican, not conservative, state

    A recent editorial prepared by the Kansas Republican Party concluded with: “Kansas Republicans are presenting a united front with sound plans to meet the challenges of a 21st century economy. Our philosophy centers on liberating the promise of the individual and family as the answer, not more government growth, on a path to prosperity.”

    That’s a fiscally conservative message. The practice of many Kansas Republicans, however, is far removed from this message advocating limited government. Kansas Republicans, especially the Senate leadership, are working to increase taxes in Kansas in a way that leads to more government growth at the expense of many thousands of private sector jobs in favor of government jobs.

    It starts with Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson. Although he is a Democrat, it was not long ago he was a Republican, even holding the chairmanship of the Kansas Republican Party. In his State of the State address in January, Parkinson proposed a temporary once cent on the dollar increase in the sales tax and an increase in cigarette taxes. Although the majority of the sales tax is pitched to Kansans as a temporary measure, these temporary taxes have a nasty habit of becoming permanent.

    In the Senate, the leadership trio of President Stephen Morris, Vice President John Vratil, and Majority Leader Derek Schmidt agree with the governor that increasing taxes is the way to balance the Kansas budget. In particular, Vratil imported a California law that taxes the sugar content of soda pop. The California law had the benefit that the tax revenue would go towards promoting childhood health. In Kansas, the revenue would go to the general fund.

    In both the Senate and the House of Representatives, Republicans hold a majority of seats. But many Republicans do not vote a conservative position on taxes and spending. At a recent legislative forum, Representative Ray Merrick, who is House Majority Leader, explained the political reality in the House. There are 76 Republican members of the House, but Merrick said that on the “very best day” there are 55 who will vote with him, meaning they are conservative Republicans. 63 votes are required to pass legislation in the House.

    Who are these legislators that belong to the Republican party but don’t vote with conservatives on issues of taxation and spending? According to rankings prepared by Americans For Prosperity-Kansas, for the 2009 session of the Kansas Legislature, the Democrat with the highest (most fiscally conservative) ranking is Jerry Williams, with a ranking of 55%. There are 11 Republicans who rank equivalent or lower than this. Their names are:

    Jill Quigley of Lenexa,
    Sheryl Spalding of Overland Park,
    Kay Wolf of Prairie Village,
    Ron Worley of Lenexa,
    Terrie Huntington (now in the Kansas Senate) of Fairway,
    Jo Ann Pottorf of Wichita,
    Tom Sloan of Lawrence,
    Don Hill of Emporia,
    Bob Brookens of Marion,
    Barbara Craft of Junction City, and
    Charles Roth of Salina.

    For the Senate, a similar analysis is clouded by the presence of Democrat Chris Steineger, who is an outlier among Democrats for his consistent votes in favor of fiscal restraint and taxpayers. But some of the worst-ranking Republicans are these:

    Jean Schodorf of Wichita,
    Pete Brungardt of Salina,
    Stephen Morris of Hugoton, who is President of the Senate,
    Tim Owens of Overland Park,
    Roger Reitz of Manhattan,
    Derek Schmidt of Independence, who is Senate Majority Leader,
    Vicki Schmidt of Topeka, and
    John Vratil of Leawood, who is Vice President of the Senate.

    The Kansas Economic Freedom Index, a new project of mine, will also let us learn who votes in favor of economic freedom and against big government, no matter what their party affiliation indicates.

  • For one Kansan, hope springs eternal

    Following is commentary and reporting from Patricia Houser, a former resident of Wichita now living in St. Paul, Kansas. She and her husband have five children and two grandchildren. She is active in her church and Boy Scouts of America, and is the Neosho County Republican Party Chair. She says her political activism began with the prolife movement in Wichita’s Summer of Mercy, and dedicates her time helping prolife candidates.

    Lately, I have felt discouraged by the way our current government, on both the Federal and our State (Kansas) level, has displayed an “I don’t care what the people say, I will do what I want” attitude. I am convinced this behavior is not what our Founding Fathers mandated in our Constitution. They wrote “We the People” for a profound reason, the people are the government; elected officials merely serve and represent the will of the people. All elected officials and most bureaucrats have sworn an oath to uphold and obey our Constitution, yet it is obvious that many of these people do not honor the oath they swore to uphold and disregard it, pushing their own agenda instead. We have blindly trusted them to do what is best for us for too long, and unfortunately, they have betrayed us.

    The Good News

    Last Saturday I witnessed something which gave me hope. I attended the Kansas GOP State Committee Meeting. One of items on the agenda was the adoption of the state platform. The committee which wrote the proposed platform held seven town hall meetings around the state for local Republicans to give their input. The committee then put these ideals on paper.

    These ideals acknowledge God as the source of our rights and privileges, call for fiscal responsibility, reduce government’s size and power, limit entitlements, and encourage Americans to retain the principles which have made us strong while developing innovative ideas to meet today’s challenges. The platform was offered for debate. No member of the assembly offered any criticism and it was passed with 111 yeas to only one nay vote.

    Three minor resolutions were proposed. All three were passed. The most contentious moment of the meeting came over whether to spend the money to print the new platform as a supplemental insert to the GOP Handbook.

    What a contrast to our legislatures. My heart was lifted by the near unanimous resolve of the members to honor God and the Founding Fathers’ vision for our country. I was proud to have been a part of this event.

  • Big tent Republicans

    By James Meier of Lawrence.

    For all the talk of “Big Tent,” it seems Republican Party officials have disregarded the idea that someday the tent would have to lean to the right rather than the left for the party to once again be successful.

    On January 29th, the Republican National Committee will meet for a Hawaii convention, where members will potentially consider three resolutions that seek to put conservative principles back in place as a foundation for both the candidate and the voter.

    Based on President Reagan’s belief that someone who agrees with him 80% of the time is his friend, the first resolution, called the “Reagan Resolution,” would require a candidate to agree with eight of ten issues that reflect the Republican Party platform before gaining RNC financial support. Quickly blasted as a litmus test by the opposition, the subsequent firestorm brought forth two more proposals that seek the same end but by different means.

    The second resolution, called the “Voter Accountability Resolution,” was introduced that would give the RNC Chairman the power to consider a candidate’s “faithfulness” to conservative principles before doling out RNC cash.

    And finally, the third resolution calls for conservative principles to be reinstituted, but fails to mention what will happen if that doesn’t come to pass.

    After the failure of the RNC in New York’s 23rd district, the resolution that’s ultimately approved at the convention will send a clear message to Republican voters just how serious the RNC is about confronting the Obama agenda and embracing the Tea Party movement.

    If the party learns but one thing from the spontaneous opposition to the Obama agenda, it should be that the nudge and wink, “Hey, we’re with you!” and the do-nothing days of the Bush era are over.

    The prevailing political wisdom has always been that the party had to move to the “center” to win an election. But that notion has always depended on conservative voters staying with the party during that move. Those days are over, even if the RNC has yet to recognize it.

    Quite frankly, if America is to continue down the path to mediocre socialism, I along with millions of other Americans have decided it would be better to take the Democrat express, all the while kicking and screaming in protest, than take the Republican Greyhound delusional that I’m somehow stopping the erosion of my everyday freedoms.

    If Republicans desire to be in power again, they must understand that a candidate adhering to conservative principles is the only way to get there. The Reagan and Voter Accountability Resolutions seek just that.

    But in an all too familiar wrinkle, some or all of the above resolutions may not be debated at all. RNC rules require a resolution to have sponsors from ten different states to be brought to the floor. The Reagan and Voter Accountability Resolutions both currently have the minimum ten, meaning one defector could scuttle both before they’re even brought to the floor.

    Scared of being viewed as a litmus test, sponsors have been few and far between. It’s an accusation that Kansas Republicans have dealt with before. Faced with elected precinct leaders endorsing Democrats in general elections, the party passed rules that removed those people from office.

    That episode has come and gone and the new rules have been used quite sparingly. And contrary to popular wisdom of the press and those opposed to the new rules, Kansas Republicans picked up a US House seat and gained 31 of 40 state Senate seats while the national party reeled from massive losses.

    And Kansas isn’t alone.

    Even the land of Al Franken and Tim Pawlenty recently recognized that a party standing for nothing doesn’t stand for long. The Minnesota Republican Party recently passed a resolution that aims to do just what the ten RNC sponsors seek as well. Kansas Republicans will consider a similar proposal a day after the RNC takes its vote.

    For years party leaders have urged the support of all candidates, no matter how out of line their voting record was with party principles. Confident the center was where elections were won and fearful of being relegated to permanent minority status, it was power over principles at its worst. But as the 2010 elections near, it’s imperative that party leaders realize that supporting candidates that adhere to party principles is the only way to ensure that Republicans are successful in the future.

    For Kansas’ part, Republican National Committeewoman Helen Van Etten is one of the ten sponsors. Kansas Republican Chairwoman Amanda Adkins and National Committeeman Mike Pompeo have not publicly stated a position on any of the three resolutions.

    I’m confident that Kansas’ Committeewoman will stand strong against the tide. I hope that her nine counterparts will as well, for the good of the party and the nation.