Convictions : 2008 election

Yet Another California Primary

Diane Marie Amann — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:41:00 GMT

While much of the country trains its eyes on South Dakota and Montana tomorrow, California voters also will go to the polls.

According to my 23-page "Official Voter Information Guide" and my 40-page "Sample Ballot and Voter Information Pamphlet," I'm to choose candidates for four partisan offices (ranging from Congress to county committee) and two nonpartisan offices (judge and county supervisor). Then I'm to ponder two competing state ballot propositions (Ban eminent domain? Or not?), and one county ballot measure (Taxes, anyone?). Missing, for the first quadrennial year in memory, is a choice among candidates for president. It's thus as good a time as any to ask whether moving the presidential primary up to Feb. 5 was a good idea.

For the GOP, it might've been a smart political move. Sen. John McCain trounced his competitors in California that day, and he clinched the nomination not long afterward. The Democrats are another story. Sen. Hillary Clinton won by eight points, but victory in California did not deliver her the nomination. What's more, in the interim four months, Californians changed their mind: Were the election held now, polling indicates, Sen. Barack Obama would carry California by 13 points. For Democrats at least, California's primary once again seems not to matter.

But forget politics for a moment. It cost at least $51 million to hold that early, extra primary. How many California taxpayers do you suppose would say it was worth the expense?

McCain's Intemperate and Unfortunate Assessment of the Third Branch

Doug Kmiec — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:08:00 GMT

John McCain dishonors the federal judiciary raising tired and out-worn complaints about judicial activism that are not borne out by fact. And why isn't Antonin Scalia on his favorite's list? ...(read more)

Equal Pay Bill

Richard Ford — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 00:13:00 GMT

Thanks Emily for pointing out the wrongheadedness of McCain’s opposition to the Equal Pay Bill.

This very mild piece of legislation would have undone an incredibly bad Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter which held that the filing period to bring a Title VII action for discriminatory compensation begins running when the employer first discriminates, even if the employer continues to in fact discriminate for years afterward. The Court in Ledbetter wrongly focused on an discriminatory state of mind—which, contrary to Justice Alito’s assertion in that case is not the sine qua non of unlawful discrimination but rather simply evidence of it---rather than the actual discrimination: differential treatment because of sex.

As I wrote in Slate last year, it’s pretty obvious that the actual discrimination is ongoing as long the employee is in fact receiving lower pay because of her sex, even if the subsequent low paychecks are simply the carryover result of the initial discriminatory decision. It doesn’t (or shouldn’t) matter if the person setting later salaries based on the original discriminatory salary isn’t motivated by discriminatory intent—the employer is discriminating as long as it is in fact paying the woman less because of her sex. The point of Title VII isn’t just to punish bad actors with evil intentions—it’s also to prevent discriminatory actions and the injuries that result from them.

And, contra McCain, far from encouraging frivolous litigation, the Equal Pay Act might even discourage it. As Emily points out, in many cases it take a while for the employee to find out that she’s being paid less than other people doing the same work (employees rarely discuss their salaries with each other and of course management has every incentive not to publicize pay disparities)—but Ledbetter says that’s tough—if you don’t find out after until after the quite short filing period ends (either 180 or 300 days), your action is time barred. This actually encourages anyone with a potential claim to hurry up and file—waiting until you’re sure you’ve been discriminated against will, under Ledbetter, often mean your case is time barred.

I have to say it’s hard for me to believe that anyone who is really committed to equal pay would oppose this mild and sensible piece of legislation-- it doesn't open us up to lawsuits for "all kinds of problems"-- only for the problem of discriminatory pay. Opposition suggests that McCain is most concerned with reducing the absolute number of cases filed—whether or not they have merit.