A new red state strategy? Two flawed constitutional amendments
Could what’s working in Nebraska work in Kentucky?
Nebraska’s Dan Osborn is a major ally of the state’s labor unions. He supports abortion rights and raising the minimum wage and opposes school vouchers. But despite having fairly Democratic policy positions, Osborn is effectively tied in the polls against Republican U.S. Sen. Deb Fischer.
Nebraska is quite red. Trump won the state by 19 percentage points in 2020.
How is Osborn doing so well? Probably because he is not running as a Democrat and has explicitly rejected the support of the official Nebraska Democratic Party. Osborn is running as an independent but convinced Nebraska Democrats not to field a candidate. So he’s not stuck with a party label that is a huge negative in his state. He’s winning almost all Democrats, a sliver of Republicans, and most importantly, a clear majority of the state’s independent voters.
There are a ton of Trump-Osborn voters in Nebraska, according to the American Prospect.
Osborn’s approach could be a model for non-Democratic candidates in blue states and more relevant to Kentuckians, non-Republicans in red states. Partisanship is very strong these days. For many people, being a Democrat or a Republican is a key part of their identity, like being a teacher, being black or being a yoga enthusiast is for others. So they only vote for candidates from their own party. What’s even stronger in my view is negative partisanship—”I am not a Republican” or “I am not a Democrat.”
So by not labeling himself as a Democrat, even as he holds many Democratic positions, Osborn is creating an opening for many voters who would not consider him otherwise. Here in Kentucky, it’s just extremely difficult to be elected statewide if you are Democrat, unless your last name is Beshear. I wonder if some aspiring candidates here should consider the Osborn route—run as independents and try to build a coalition of moderate Republicans, Democrats and independents.
No one knows who's going to win next week.
Some things are not complicated
It was obvious in early 2022 that most Americans, including a huge number of Democrats, didn’t want President Biden to run for a second term. It was obvious, in November 2023, that the Biden administration’s constant use of the phrase “Israel has a right to defend itself” signaled U.S tolerance for basically anything Israel did and would legitimate mass killings of Palestinian civilians.
The problem with Amendment 1
Liberals are putting initiatives on the ballot in states across the country to protect or expand abortion rights. Meanwhile, conservatives in eight states, including Kentucky, are pushing amendments to bar noncitizens from voting.
Over the last few years, a few liberal cities, including San Francisco and Washington, D.C., have started allowing noncitizens to vote in local elections. (So not for president, U.S. Senate or governor.)
“Noncitizens are eligible to vote if they are at least 18 years old as of Election Day, have been a D.C. resident for at least 30 days before the election, have not been deemed by a court legally incompetent to vote and are not claiming the right to vote in any state, territory or country,” the Washington Post reported in a recent story.
No locality in Kentucky has passed such a provision—or even really considered it, as far as I know. So there isn’t a real point to this amendment. The places where these amendments are on the ballot aren’t the ones where noncitizens are voting.
That said, I support noncitizens voting in local elections. People aren’t moving their families from El Salvador or other countries simply because they are so eager to vote in D.C. city council elections. They have come to the United States for a better life. Some of them haven’t yet qualified for citizenship but have long held jobs and are raising their children here.
They should have a voice in who sets policies for them.
The problem with Amendment 2
I think there is a reasonable case that a student who is able to attend Assumption or Collegiate (private high schools here) might get a better education than at the high school closest to their home. But for many families, private school tuition isn’t affordable. That’s the theoretical appeal of private school vouchers. Lower-income people could have access to the same educational options as the rich ones.
But based on how these vouchers have worked in other states, I don’t think we are likely to see a stream of lower-income students in prestigious private schools with small class sizes if Amendment 2 passes in Kentucky. Instead, what’s likely to happen is
Families are given a voucher that doesn’t pay for the full current price of many private schools;
Private schools raise tuition, since families have more money for education because of the voucher;
More upper-income families enroll in private schools, using the voucher to fund much of it;
Lower-income families remain in public schools, since they are free and the private schools require some out-of-pocket costs, even with the voucher;
The public school system loses upper-income students and therefore funding for teachers and staff because funding is given per pupil;
There are fewer public school teachers, weakening their unions, which usually support Democratic candidates and oppose Republicans.
Amendment 2 is part of a broader national Republican agenda: weaken public institutions, including libraries and schools; help religious conservatives (vouchers tend to be used at Catholic schools); punish public schools for teaching things conservatives don’t like (honest descriptions of LGBT, racial and gender inequality); disempower public sector unions.