To some, Common Core Standards in schools are old news; but as full implementation approaches for many states, a new wave of support and much opposition has arisen. The Common Core Standards are educational guidelines that help teachers provide students with skills and knowledge which make them successful and globally competitive after high school, as well as aide in setting clear goals for students as they advance through K-12 curriculums.

The Common Core Standards Initiative is a state-led initiative authored by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO); contributors to the effort include teachers, parents, experts, researchers and school administrators from across the country. The standards were drafted and adopted by 45 states, most of which signed on in 2010-11 with a 2013-15 implementation goal.

So what is the issue with raising education standards for our future generations? Much of the opposition feels that standardized curriculums stifle a teachers craft, relinquishes states’ of control of education, and in some cases adds additional costs to a state’s budget. While standardization may alter one’s perception of freedom, the Initiative states that the standards “establish what students need to learn, but they do not dictate how teachers should teach”*. By streamlining just some of what teachers are doing in class, as standards have only been developed for English Language Arts and Mathematics, teachers are able to maintain creative freedom with their lesson plans but also collaborate with administrators and schools nationwide. And because the standards were not federally mandated, states always had the choice to opt into adoption of standards, as seen by the map below.

While standards were not authored or implemented by the federal government, states were provided an incentive to sign onto the standards in the form of a large fund, “Race to the Top”. Race to the Top is a federal fund which backs the Common Core State Standards Initiative. Race to the Top has “dedicated over $4 billion to 19 states that have created robust plans that address the four key areas of K-12 education reform”*. The key areas include the standards and better assessments, improved data systems, support for teachers, and increased resources for low-performance schools.

Such a substantial fund may be enough to entice any state to sign on to the standards, but states were aware that they may not receive funds, and over half didn’t. Now some states are seeing anti-common core legislation introduced amongst divided legislatures. In Indiana, Senate Bill 193 was introduced with the purpose of halting any state implementation of Common Core standards; a key component of former Governor Mitch Daniels K-12 education reform. The bill easily passed the Senate 38-11 and is currently in limbo. Next, the bill will be assigned to a committee, which will determine if the bill is heard on the house floor. The Indiana Chamber of Commerce has been vigilant in the effort, encouraging a broad audience to contact their legislators on behalf of Common Core. Additionally, their State Board of Education endorsed Common Core as recently as January, despite a lack of funding from feds.  Derek Redelman, VP of Education and Workforce Policy at the Indiana Chamber, has described pushback as “interpretation that the initiative was developed and promoted by the feds. The President simply endorsed it, the same way he endorsed  charter schools, performance pay for teachers, and takeover of failing schools” he added. Redelman also shed light on the opposition’s argument of added costs in regards to professional development for teachers, “There is some legitimacy to an overall cost concern, but we have to ask ourselves – was this the right thing to do to help improve education anyway?  This isn’t trading two equals, most people believe that this is a significant improvement and with a lot of things that get improved, there is going to be some investment required to accomplish that”.

To learn more about Common Core, click here.

* http://www.indianaprosperity.org

* http://www.whitehouse.gov

* http://www.commoncore.org

> Click here for a printable PDF

It is no secret the 112th Congress was one of the least effective in history. To review the most compelling stats:  the 112th passed fewer public laws than any congress on record (starting in 1948), it was also the least popular since approval ratings were tracked, and it was the most polarized congress in U.S. history.  The public policy process was dramatically impacted by stagnation on Capitol Hill, resulting in frustration among the business community and anyone advocating for change in DC.  Groups began expand the playing field by looking beyond Capitol Hill towards regulatory agencies as well as state and local governments to ensure their voices were heard.

But the advocacy community was not the only group to seek other avenues beyond Congress to achieve policy priorities. The White House has chosen to enact much of its agenda through regulatory agencies. According to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, in the first three years of his administration, President Obama approved 37 major regulations compared to the 9 major regulations President Bush approved in a similar time frame. A major regulation is a rule that “may result in expenditures of more than $100 million.”  The estimated costs of President Obama’s major regulations have far outweighed the cost of those approved by President Bush, $18.8 billion to $4.3 billion. Additionally, according to CNS news, in the last months of 2012, the Obama administration posted 6,125 regulations and notices, an average of 68 a day over a 90 day period.

With an ineffective Congress and increasingly robust regulatory presence, one may ask, what is the most effective way for business grassroots efforts to proceed?  There are two key points to know before engaging agencies at the grassroots level: 1) Understand the environment and 2) Know the process.

Understand the Environment
Before engaging your grassroots team with regulatory agencies, it’s important to know the environment, such as what is the public’s perception, who are the key players, what is the political spin and how are all of these related to your issue.  According to a Gallup poll late last year, 47% of Americans say government regulates business and industry too much, as opposed to only 26% who say there is not enough regulation. These numbers have held fairly steady since 2003, and over the past thirty years, the number of individuals saying there is not enough regulation has never surpassed a third of the population. Americans are clearly in favor of fewer regulations. Additionally, knowing the key players is essential. For example, who should your efforts be directed to at a specific agency – a secretary, deputy secretary, etc.? And what are the personalities and backgrounds of those individuals. For an overview of changes in President Obama’s cabinet see below.  And finally, it’s extremely important to recognize that perception is always a political liability, even in the weeds of regulatory bodies.  Politicians have and will continue to use selective metrics to describe their stance on regulations.  Currently, regulation of business is perceived as more politically divisive than ever before.  According to Pew, 76% of Republicans, 58% of Independents and 41% of Democrats say government regulation does more harm than good. The Republican and Democratic percentages are at the highest and lowest, respectively, they’ve ever been in history.  Understanding the political angles of regulation will allow your grassroots efforts to be more informed and strategic.

Understand the Process
The regulatory process is intended to be participatory and public. Nearly all regulations allow for a period of public comments between proposal and finalization. Additionally, established regulations are rarely final. They are continuously tweaked and revisited allowing for multiple time-frames to engage your grassroots efforts on a specific issue. By law, Federal agencies must consult the public in rulemaking.  Having public comments from employees and employers can truly have an impact on an agency’s rule writing because they are able to better assess the acceptance or resistance of a regulation at a local level. Comments are all recorded and confirmed by the Federal Register. The Federal Register is where all announcements of proposed and final regulations are published.  In order to better understand the rulemaking and regulatory process a great resource is www.regulations.gov, and this fact sheet showing how public comments and engagement makes a difference.

The new 113th Congress is underway and has shown signs that it could be much more productive than its predecessor.  However, by expanding the playing field to regulatory agencies when pushing your agenda, you can be more effective in your grassroots and advocacy efforts. By expanding the playing field, business can expand its influence in the policy process.

While Americans are beginning to get used to the Sequester that went into effect March 1, there are more important deadlines looming on the horizon.  The airport security lines have not been more unbearable than usual, the government is still running, and only White House tours have been cancelled.  Congress avoided the next fiscal pitfall, passing a Continuing Resolution to keep funding the government through the end of the fiscal year.  While the Sequester is more of a slowdown, the March 27 deadline to pass the Continuing Resolution represented a government shutdown in addition to the provisions of the Sequester.  If a CR had not passed, hundreds of thousands of federal employees would have face unpaid furlough and several programs and essential government functions could have lost their funding.

With the deadline next Wednesday, Congress acted swiftly enough to keep the government operational, and preserve their two week Easter break that begins next week.  What exactly is a Continuing Resolution?  It is legislation in the form of a congressional joint resolution that would allow federal agencies and programs to continue to operate at current funding levels through the fiscal year, which ends September 30, 2013.  The Senate passed one on Wednesday and it sailed through the House on Thursday, with a bipartisan vote of 318-109.  Once the President signs the Continuing Resolution, a shutdown is officially avoided.

With a little under a week to spare before the deadline, Congress had plenty of breathing room.  At least considering how close a shutdown has come before.  The last, and longest, government shutdown was from December 15, 1995 through January 6, 1996 under President Clinton.  More recently, the country was less than an hour away from shutdown when Congress passed a Continuing Resolution just minutes before the April 8, 2011 midnight deadline.  This funding is incredibly important and the bipartisan support that the Continuing Resolution received is a very positive sign.  But with one crisis averted, another one is coming in less than a month.  A new budget must be passed by Congress before April 15 or No Budget, No Pay will go into effect, garnishing legislators pay until a deal can be reached.  The House and the Senate have each been working on budgets, but it remains to be seen if Republicans and Democrats can find common ground like they did for the Continuing Resolution.  One more fiscal test down, with several other important, and telling, tests to watch for.

UPDATED

The special primary election to fill the vacancy in SC’s first congressional district was held yesterday. Former Rep. Tim Scott (R) was appointed to the U.S. Senate in January following the retirement of Sen. Jim DeMint (R).  On the Democratic side, the outcome held no surprises as the only serious candidate was Elizabeth Colbert Busch – sister to comedian Stephen Colbert. Colbert won her primary challenge with 95.9% of the vote.

The Republican primary was a free-for-all with 16 candidates vying for the nomination.  The front runner was former Gov. Mark Sanford who received the most votes Tuesday night and who will now advance to a runoff held April 2nd.  Sanford needed 50% of the vote to win the nomination, but fell short with only 36.9% of the vote.  The next highest vote getters were state Sen. Larry Grooms with 12.4% and Charleston County Councilman Curtis Bostic with 13.2% of the vote (99% precincts reporting).  When a result is within one percentage point between second and third place, a recount is automatically held.  As of Wednesday morning, Grooms conceded meaning no recount will be held and Bostic will face Sanford in the runoff.

The special general election will be held May 7th between Elizabeth Colbert Busch and the winner of the Republican runoff.

Catholics not only make up the United States’ largest religious group, but they have supported the popular vote winner of every presidential election since 1972. With such a strong track record, Catholics are often seen as a bellwether voting bloc in presidential years. In 2012 President Obama won this group of voters, but to understand how they may vote moving forward, you need to understand their past.

The History of the Catholic vote

In 1960, John F. Kennedy (D) was the first Catholic to be elected President of the United States –a monumental time in history.  The 1960 election proved America had reached a peak of acceptance towards Catholics –a group that had been very loyal to the Democratic Party. But the years following Kennedy’s presidency saw a shift in the Catholic vote. Nationally, Democrats moved markedly to the left upsetting many Catholics. As a result, in 1972 Richard Nixon (R) claimed the Catholic vote, the first time a Republican had won this group in over twenty years. All other groups also went Republican except for the non-white vote.   After this election, Catholics truly began to evolve into this bellwether voting bloc. In 1980 and 1984, Catholics, along with many other groups, voted for Ronald Reagan (R).  But George H.W. Bush (R) lost the Catholic vote to Michael Dukakis (D) in 1988.

Though Catholics have over time traditionally voted in favor of Democrats, they don’t necessarily vote for fellow Catholics – as John Kerry (D), who is Catholic, figured out in 2004.  In 2004, George W. Bush (R), a Methodist, claimed the Catholic vote.  In 2008 and 2012, President Obama won the Catholic vote even with his attempt to force religious institutions to cover medical services and procedures that violate religious practices.  In 2012, both parties had a Catholic vice presidential nominee.  CNN described Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden as a Vatican II generation Catholic reared on the “lofty ambitions” of the 1960s.  In the 2012 Presidential election, the Obama Administration went up against a practicing Mormon, Mitt Romney (R).  Romney’s running mate, Representative Paul Ryan (R- WI 1) is said to be a conservative Catholic.

The chart below shows how Catholics voted in Presidential Elections, 1972-2012

The Future of the Catholic Vote

Today was Pope Francis’ papal inauguration – he is now the head of the estimated 1.9 billion Catholics in the world after the recent resignation of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.  This marks the first pope to be elected from Latin America. Many political pundits wonder how the new Pope may impact Catholic voting in America. Catholic identification is at a four decade low in the United States.  According to Gallup, Latinos – the largest growing demographic in the U.S. – identify as Catholic, although the Catholic percentage among Latinos appears to be decreasing, and the youngest Latinos are less likely to be Catholic than their older counterparts.  While their numbers are dwindling, Latino Catholics still make up a large subgroup of Catholic voters (the largest is made up of White Catholic moderates). White Catholics as a whole have been divided in recent elections; a group who normally describe themselves as reliable conservatives.   Their numbers are shrinking, which mirrors what is happening among the electorate in the United States.   Will the election of this new pope and the increasing number of Latinos in the United States lead to a realignment of this group in the United States, and will they continue to be a predictor of U.S. Presidential elections? Only time will tell.

Click here for the religious affiliations of our current and former U.S. Presidents

America has always been shaped by dynamic demographics. Those seeking religious freedom, escaping potato famines, fleeing tyranny or surviving bondage have created a mix of cultures, ethnicities and beliefs. Our ability to assimilate this diversity remains one of America’s unique strengths. In that regard, however, nothing is as predictable as the unpredictability of how these many faces of America eventually carve their niche in American politics.

To many, the 2012 elections was a harbinger of the coming Democratic political dominance.  Our nation’s largest and fastest growing minority groups, African Americans, Hispanics and Asians, voted overwhelmingly in favor of President Obama and the Democrats, just as they had in 2008.  Although Republicans gained strength among white voters, white voters as a percentage of the total vote slipped from 77% in 2004 to 72% in 2012. In a nation trending from 64% white today to 56% white by 2030, traditional wisdom suggests a Democratic demographic dominance is all but certain.

I think the common wisdom may be wrong on three counts.

First, although Hispanic, African American and Asian voters showed up in greater numbers in the last two elections, they still account for about a third of the total vote. In the 2012 election, voters under 45 accounted for 46% of the total vote, far more than expected. In fact, this was the only demographic group to actually vote in higher numbers than they did in 2008.  They voted 61% for candidate Obama in 2008 but only 55% for President Obama in 2012, a drop of 6%. Had the under 45 vote split evenly last year, President Obama would have lost by approximately a million votes, even with the higher turnout and huge support of the growing minority groups.

Even more interesting is the core beliefs of the under 45 demographic. They are significantly more fiscally conservative than the population as a whole and nearly 70% support a limited federal government over a more socially active government.  From our research we find this group is also the most receptive to policy input from their employer.  They tend to support business interests and dislike extremists of either side.  For these voters, the core conservative principle of “equality under the law” extends to those with non-traditional lifestyles.  With 60% of them strongly favoring civil marriages, they are far more socially tolerant than the base GOP. In short, voters under 45 trend towards being Libertarians, which explains their attraction to Congressman Ron Paul in last year’s GOP primary.  In the end, when forced to choose between the fiscal conservatism and perceived social intolerance of the GOP or the less attractive fiscal but more tolerant social stands of the Democrats, enough chose the latter.  Even so, that was a comparative choice in 2012, not a permanent demographic indicator.

Second, tradition dictates we view demographics in traditional terms:  by race and religion.   But in the age of the Internet, much of that doesn’t matter as much as it used to and a lot less than it is going to in the future. Last year, about 40% of those under 45 got their political information from the Internet, compared to about 22% for the population as a whole.   For those under 30, if your message wasn’t offered in new media formats, it wasn’t heard at all. Minorities who use the Internet are even more likely to get their information from social networks than non-minorities.  These voters are moving to cell phones and social networks, and texting is their form of “conversation.” In this emerging environment, race, ethnicity and religion tend to lose some of their relevancy. What emerges is a more colorblind, multi-lingual and universal discussion on issues, attitudes and outcomes.

Third, things change. Evolving economies, new leaders and events make a difference. African Americans were once Republicans and southern whites were once Democrats. As an African American, President Obama empowered a generation of new black political activism just as Ronald Reagan gave voice to a new generation of conservative activism. Charismatic leaders can do that.

None of this is to suggest Republicans don’t need to do some serious outreach to minority voters. They do.  This does suggest, however, that their highest priority should be on their messaging to younger voters who are inclined to drift toward the GOP message on core economics.  This also suggests no amount of outreach to minorities or those under 45 will be fruitful if the Republicans can’t shake the image of social intolerance. No one should be so foolish to think they can succeed without making a new media infrastructure and strategy their highest priority tactic.

Since November 7, 2012, the discussion has centered on how Republicans lost the youth, women’s and minority vote.  Let’s go one step further; the discussion has been about how Republicans lost Latino voters and how they can gain their trust.  Democrats have dominated the Latino vote the past two Presidential Elections.  Many have said Obama’s victory was due, in large part, to this group – the minority group that is paving the way for a majority-minority population that should happen around 2043.

What is sometimes overlooked; however, is the growing number of Asians in the United States.  It might be hard to believe when looking solely at percentages, but they are the fastest growing minority group.  Census data shows a 46% increase from 2000 to 2010.  The Asian population increased more than four times faster than the total U.S. population.   The region to see the largest distribution was the west, especially in California and Hawaii.  Other states to see large distribution percentages are New York, Texas, New Jersey, Washington and Illinois.

Like other minority populations, they identify or lean more Democratic.   This does not mean they are wedded to the Democratic Party – in fact, 46% of Asian Americans describe themselves, first, as independent or other.  Asian Americans are the highest-income and best educated minority group in the United States.  This is intriguing because one would think they fit the profile of a typical Republican voter.   Nonetheless, Asian Americans are more likely to support an activist government.  The switch from Asian Americans voting more Republican to more Democratic took place during the Clinton Administration.  Clinton had a successful economic record and active recruitment of downballot Asian Americans.

Time will tell if Democrats continue to hang onto to this group or if Republicans can win them over, along with Latinos, younger voters and unmarried women.

Below is the current list of open seats for 2014 due to term limits, retirements and legislators running for Senate.

Senate (6: 2 R, 4 D)

• Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) is retiring.
• Tom Harkin (D-IA) is retiring.
• Mike Johanns (R-NE) is retiring
• Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is retiring.
• Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) is retiring.
• Carl Levin (D-MI) is retiring.

House (3: 2 R, 1 D)

• Bruce Braley (D- IA 1) is running for Senate.
• Paul Broun (R- GA 10) is running for Senate.
• Shelley Moore Capito (R- WV 2) is running for Senate.

Governor (5: 2R, 3D)

• Mike Beebe (D- AR) is term limited.
• Jan Brewer (R-AZ) is term limited.
• Dave Heineman (R-NE) is term limited.
• Martin O’Malley (D-MD) is term limited.
• Deval Patrick (D-MA) will not seek re-election

Stakes in the States

Two weeks ago, the nation’s highest court heard arguments against Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; an issue that is both complicated and sensitive and a ruling that thankfully it’s not my job to decide. But, while everyone is talking about the Sequester, I want to take this opportunity to draw your attention to such a noteworthy court case, the impacts it may have on 16 states, and the political implications that could follow.

In Shelby County v. Holder, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is being challenged under the claim that it poses an unconstitutional burden on specific states. Section 5 of the VRA requires nine states and cities or counties in seven additional states to “pre-clear” (or get permission) with the Department of Justice or a panel of three federal judges in D.C. before making any changes to their voting process: redistricting, voter ID laws, special election dates, etc. This was put into place in 1965 in order to protect any voters from discrimination based on racial or ethnic background. The Supreme Court upheld the law four years ago but essentially told Congress that it needed to review the legislation and determine if the formula for which states need to be covered, should be updated – the formula is thirty-five years old.  Congress, being completely useless these days in passing meaningful legislation, did not heed the Court’s suggestion, and as a result, Section 5 of the law is now being challenged. I am no legal expert and could not even begin to weigh in on what the ruling will be or the merits of the challenge, but I do find the potential political implications of the outcome extremely important to consider.

The outcome of this challenge is expected to be decided this June.  Of the 16 states affected, the nine states that are entirely covered include: Alaska, Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, and Virginia. The seven states that are marginally covered via counties/townships are: Michigan, New York, New Hampshire, South Dakota, North Carolina, Florida and California. Several of these states have had little issue with the pre-clearance process and have been able to make the case that they should be exempt from the process, and therefore have been able to “bail-out”.  The Department of Justice has tracked the number of objections it has issued to new or revised voting laws in all of the above states since the VRA was signed into law. The number of objections from bailed out states like New Mexico and Alaska totals one each. The majority of southern states, however, have had a greater challenge getting pre-clearance for legal changes.

Number of objections per state and most recent rejection date:

SC: 122 (2011) LA: 146 (2011) MS: 173 (2012) GA: 178 (2012)  TX: 209 (2012)

Last cycle, voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina were objected by the Department of Justice, and redistricting laws for districts at all levels of government were objected in North Carolina, Texas, Georgia and Mississippi.  This goes to show that in some states the preclearance process is still an active part of the voting law process.

So how has this law affected politics over the past four decades? Section 5 has ensured that congressional districts are drawn in a way that protects racial minority voters, in many states creating what are often referred to as “majority-minority” districts.  According to Census analysis done by the Cook Political Report, the 113th Congress currently has 111 non-white majority or majority-minority districts. Democrats represent 87.4% of those districts, while Republicans represent 67.9% of majority white districts.  If you take a step further at where those districts are located, you will find the majority of them fall within jurisdictions of Section 5 of the VRA. Of the nine states in which the entire state must be pre-cleared, 28 majority-minority districts are located within them – 15 of which are in Texas, 5 in Georgia, 2 in Virginia and Arizona, and 1 in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina.  And if you examine the seven states which are partially covered, 13 majority-minority districts are touched by those counties and townships.

If Section 5 is upheld, then it will only be a matter of time before it is challenged again and ultimately changed or ruled unconstitutional. For now, we know that Section 5 has protected many disenfranchised voters in a number of states over the last half-century. However, we also know that districts drawn to protect those voters have now created congressional districts that elect a racially divided Congress. The issue is a double edged sword and I do not envy the decision the Court has to make.

To see two different arguments for and against Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, see George Will’s article against here, or Donna Brazile’s article for here.