15 June 2007
You Can't Trust A Judge
In this opinion Justice Thomas (joined by four of his conservative colleagues) faults a litigant for relying upon a deadline set forth in a court order from a District Court judge incorrectly. The four liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court dissent, noting that:
What was at stake? The man was convicted of murder and serving a sentence of 15 years to life. This was an appeal of his denial of relief in a collateral attack on his sentence in federal court.
The man was represented by an attorney whose assistance on the habeas appeal was obviously ineffective in hindsight, and was denied appellate review only because his attorney, through no fault of the individual serving the sentence, relied on an court order regarding the deadline. Four out of nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court thought his attorney did the right thing and was a good lawyer. But, you do not have a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel for habeas corpus petitions, as you do on a direct appeal if one is available, so the man in prison can't file a new petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel in his habeas corpus petition.
The real game being played in this case is that conservatives simply do not like federal habeas corpus petitions and are looking for any grounds to deny them, because the conservative majority feels that these petitions are almost per se frivilous. Basically, conservatives think that direct appeals are enough due process, and liberals question that assumption.
Most of the time the conservatives are right. Something like 98% of federal habeas corpus petitions do not prevail. But, the exceptions (including something like 40% of death penalty cases where defendants usually are represented by counsel), are important ones in the eyes of liberals.
It is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way, and there is not even a technical justification for condoning this bait and switch.
What was at stake? The man was convicted of murder and serving a sentence of 15 years to life. This was an appeal of his denial of relief in a collateral attack on his sentence in federal court.
The man was represented by an attorney whose assistance on the habeas appeal was obviously ineffective in hindsight, and was denied appellate review only because his attorney, through no fault of the individual serving the sentence, relied on an court order regarding the deadline. Four out of nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court thought his attorney did the right thing and was a good lawyer. But, you do not have a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel for habeas corpus petitions, as you do on a direct appeal if one is available, so the man in prison can't file a new petition claiming ineffective assistance of counsel in his habeas corpus petition.
The real game being played in this case is that conservatives simply do not like federal habeas corpus petitions and are looking for any grounds to deny them, because the conservative majority feels that these petitions are almost per se frivilous. Basically, conservatives think that direct appeals are enough due process, and liberals question that assumption.
Most of the time the conservatives are right. Something like 98% of federal habeas corpus petitions do not prevail. But, the exceptions (including something like 40% of death penalty cases where defendants usually are represented by counsel), are important ones in the eyes of liberals.
Stating the Obvious About Iraq
Sometimes it is worth getting back to basics when it comes to the Iraq War.
We have been in Iraq for more than four years. Several months ago, President Bush, over Congressional objections, directed a "surge" in U.S. troop levels in Iraq with a particular concentration of forces in Baghdad.
Yesterday, here's what happened in the capitol city:
Yesterday was a bad day in Baghdad, but honestly, not all that notable. Baghdad often this level of violence, and the events described above happened notwithstanding that fact that a curfew was in place, all non-military vehicles were forced off the streets, and the Green Zone was locked down.
Efforts to establish a legitimate Iraqi civilian government were supposed to pacify the nation. What happened? As Wikipedia notes:
The Iraqi Parliament is currently on summer vacation.
The yesterday's events, largely triggered by a successful attack on the Shiite Muslim Askariya mosque in Samarra, don't inspire confidence in the Iraqi police force that is supposed to maintain order so that we can leave Iraq in good order. As the Denver Post article linked and quoted in part above explains:
In counties in a relative state of peace, you don't have the military arrest policemen simply in order to ask them questions about crimes committed on their watch.
According to another Wikipedia article: "As of 2006, 1.8 million Iraqis, out of a current population of 28.8 million, are living in other countries."
And consider these events of fifteen months ago:
What we are doing in Iraq isn't working. We need to do something profoundly different.
We have been in Iraq for more than four years. Several months ago, President Bush, over Congressional objections, directed a "surge" in U.S. troop levels in Iraq with a particular concentration of forces in Baghdad.
Yesterday, here's what happened in the capitol city:
Baghdad, Iraq - . . . extremists fired shells into the city's protected Green Zone during a visit by the U.S. State Department's No. 2 official.
The barrage of rockets and mortars included one that hit on a street close to the Iraq parliament less than a half-hour before Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte passed nearby. . . . Four Sunni mosques near Baghdad were attacked or burned . . . . Insurgents linked to al-Qaeda, meanwhile, released a videotape showing the execution-style deaths of 14 Iraqi soldiers and policemen[.]
Yesterday was a bad day in Baghdad, but honestly, not all that notable. Baghdad often this level of violence, and the events described above happened notwithstanding that fact that a curfew was in place, all non-military vehicles were forced off the streets, and the Green Zone was locked down.
Efforts to establish a legitimate Iraqi civilian government were supposed to pacify the nation. What happened? As Wikipedia notes:
Following the invasion, the United States established the Coalition Provisional Authority to govern Iraq. Government authority was transferred to an Iraqi Interim Government in June 2004 and a permanent government was elected in October 2005. More than 140,000 Coalition troops remain in Iraq. . . .
On October 15, 2005, more than 63% of eligible Iraqis came out across the country to vote on whether to accept or reject the new constitution. On October 25, the vote was certified and the constitution passed with a 78% overall majority, with the percentage of support varying widely between the country's territories. The new constitution had overwhelming backing among the Shia and Ķurdish communities, but was overwhelmingly rejected by Arab Sunnis. Three majority Arab Sunni provinces rejected it (Salah ad Din with 82% against, Ninawa with 55% against, and Al Anbar with 97% against).
Under the terms of the constitution, the country conducted fresh nationwide parliamentary elections on December 15 to elect a new government. The overwhelming majority of all three major ethnic groups in Iraq voted along ethnic lines, turning this vote into more of an ethnic census than a competitive election, and setting the stage for the division of the country along ethnic lines.
The Iraqi Parliament is currently on summer vacation.
The yesterday's events, largely triggered by a successful attack on the Shiite Muslim Askariya mosque in Samarra, don't inspire confidence in the Iraqi police force that is supposed to maintain order so that we can leave Iraq in good order. As the Denver Post article linked and quoted in part above explains:
The first attack on the site in February 2006 sent the country into sectarian violence that destroyed Washington's hopes of a steady withdrawal from Iraq. On Wednesday, bombers toppled the two minarets that stood over the ruins of the mosque's famous Golden Dome. . . . The U.S. military issued a statement Thursday saying Iraqi forces had arrested the commander and 12 policemen responsible for security at the shrine, which holds the tombs of two revered ninth century Shiite imams. It was not immediately clear whether the police arrested are suspects in the attack or held for questioning.
In counties in a relative state of peace, you don't have the military arrest policemen simply in order to ask them questions about crimes committed on their watch.
According to another Wikipedia article: "As of 2006, 1.8 million Iraqis, out of a current population of 28.8 million, are living in other countries."
And consider these events of fifteen months ago:
the director of the Baghdad morgue fled Iraq explaining, "7,000 people have been killed by death squads in recent months." The Boston Globe reported that around eight times the number of Iraqis killed by terrorist bombings during March 2006 were killed by sectarian death squads during the same period. A total of 1,313 were killed by sectarian militias while 173 were killed by suicide bombings. The LA Times later reported that about 3,800 Iraqis were killed by sectarian violence in Baghdad alone during the first three months of 2006. During April 2006, morgue numbers show that 1,091 Baghdad residents were killed by sectarian executions.
What we are doing in Iraq isn't working. We need to do something profoundly different.
14 June 2007
When Did Colorado's Tax System Become Regressive?
Colorado's tax system was slightly more regressive in 1990 than it was in 2000, but actually had a slightly progressive state and local tax system in 1980.
Notably, the increased regressivity of Colorado's tax system predates the 1992 adoption by Colorado voters of theTaxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR), which has had almost no direct impact on the regressivity or progressivity of Colorado's tax system, even though it is the feature of Colorado's tax system for which it is best known. Arguably, however, TABOR has played a role in preventing major reforms of Colorado's system, thus maintaining a regressive status quo, because voter approval requirements discourage complicated changes in the tax system, even if they are revenue neutral.
Indeed, at first glance, the causes of this shift defy conventional wisdom, because at the state level, the shift between 1980 and 1990 was towards taxes that are usually more progressive. In 1980, Colorado adopted many sales tax and income tax breaks when it was flush with oil money. But, while many of the sales tax breaks stayed, most of the income tax breaks were repealed in the early 1980s in the face of the oil bust, and the state's income tax base was broadened greatly in 1987, in response to the federal income tax overhaul that took place in 1986.
Personal income taxes are now (2002) a much larger share of the state general fund budget than there were then (1976) (55% v. 39%), state sales taxes are a slightly smaller share (34% v. 37%), and sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco are also less important (1.7% v. 5.7% of state general fund revenues). Corporate income taxes have declined significantly (8.0% v. 2.9%) as the tax reforms of 1986 made the C corporation less attractive as an organizational form for small businesses.
Colorado has the lowest state income tax rate (2.9%) of any state in the nation which has a sales tax. Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon, however, have no state sales taxes.
The mystery is solved by looking at changes in local government taxes in Colorado, which collect an unusually large share of all state and local taxes in the state. Colorado's combined state and local tax collections are just about at the median for the nation, even though its state level tax collections are among the lowest. One major factor that lead to a more regressive tax system in Colorado was the Gallagher Amendment (Ref. #1) passed by voters in 1982 (basically, Article X, Section 3 of the Colorado Constitution), which has limited increases in non-business property taxes to a rate significant below that of business property taxes. It has also significantly reduced overall property tax collections. Property taxes as a percentage of personal income fell 20% from 1991 to 2001.
This has pressured local governments, particularly those with primarily residential tax bases, to look to sales taxes rather than less regressive property taxes for additional revenues. Colorado now ranks 41st among the states in the percentage of local government revenue obtained from property taxes. Four of the nine states (Table 441) that have local governments less reliant on property taxes: have significant local income taxes, something no present in Colorado. They are New York, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri.
Meanwhile, since 1980, Colorado, like the rest of the country, has seen the income of its top earners surge, while middle and lower class income have remained relatively stagnant.
This then, is the history of how Colorado's tax system got to the regressive state it has reached now, and given the double whammy of TABOR and the single subject requirement for ballot measures, it will be hard to get out of this mess (although TABOR actually does have a large scale tax reform exception).
Notably, the increased regressivity of Colorado's tax system predates the 1992 adoption by Colorado voters of theTaxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR), which has had almost no direct impact on the regressivity or progressivity of Colorado's tax system, even though it is the feature of Colorado's tax system for which it is best known. Arguably, however, TABOR has played a role in preventing major reforms of Colorado's system, thus maintaining a regressive status quo, because voter approval requirements discourage complicated changes in the tax system, even if they are revenue neutral.
Indeed, at first glance, the causes of this shift defy conventional wisdom, because at the state level, the shift between 1980 and 1990 was towards taxes that are usually more progressive. In 1980, Colorado adopted many sales tax and income tax breaks when it was flush with oil money. But, while many of the sales tax breaks stayed, most of the income tax breaks were repealed in the early 1980s in the face of the oil bust, and the state's income tax base was broadened greatly in 1987, in response to the federal income tax overhaul that took place in 1986.
Personal income taxes are now (2002) a much larger share of the state general fund budget than there were then (1976) (55% v. 39%), state sales taxes are a slightly smaller share (34% v. 37%), and sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco are also less important (1.7% v. 5.7% of state general fund revenues). Corporate income taxes have declined significantly (8.0% v. 2.9%) as the tax reforms of 1986 made the C corporation less attractive as an organizational form for small businesses.
Colorado has the lowest state income tax rate (2.9%) of any state in the nation which has a sales tax. Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon, however, have no state sales taxes.
The mystery is solved by looking at changes in local government taxes in Colorado, which collect an unusually large share of all state and local taxes in the state. Colorado's combined state and local tax collections are just about at the median for the nation, even though its state level tax collections are among the lowest. One major factor that lead to a more regressive tax system in Colorado was the Gallagher Amendment (Ref. #1) passed by voters in 1982 (basically, Article X, Section 3 of the Colorado Constitution), which has limited increases in non-business property taxes to a rate significant below that of business property taxes. It has also significantly reduced overall property tax collections. Property taxes as a percentage of personal income fell 20% from 1991 to 2001.
This has pressured local governments, particularly those with primarily residential tax bases, to look to sales taxes rather than less regressive property taxes for additional revenues. Colorado now ranks 41st among the states in the percentage of local government revenue obtained from property taxes. Four of the nine states (Table 441) that have local governments less reliant on property taxes: have significant local income taxes, something no present in Colorado. They are New York, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri.
Meanwhile, since 1980, Colorado, like the rest of the country, has seen the income of its top earners surge, while middle and lower class income have remained relatively stagnant.
This then, is the history of how Colorado's tax system got to the regressive state it has reached now, and given the double whammy of TABOR and the single subject requirement for ballot measures, it will be hard to get out of this mess (although TABOR actually does have a large scale tax reform exception).
Habitual Burglars and DNA
For all the overall focus on shifting prison resources to where they are needed to retrain violent offenders, it is worth recalling the impact that habitual criminals can have, something revealed in Denver where the police have spent $150,000 to use DNA analysis to catch burglars. According to the police:
This may be press release journalism on the Denver Post’s part (they didn't even bother to identify the West Washington Park burglar by name), uncritically taken from one point of view, but when a single arrest reduces burglaries 40% in my neighborhood, I pay attention. The fact that my son’s bike was stolen off the front porch, that I’ve had my car radio stolen a couple of times, and that I know someone who has experienced multiple burglaries in my neighborhood contribute to my interest. Jessica Centers at Westword did an in depth investigation of the story -- the burglars in my neighborhood were David Weller and his wife Dina Weller. David got 36 years in prison, and his wife was awaiting sentencing when the Westword story went to print in September of 2006.
Presumably, the higher sentences are because the offenders can be better linked to multiple incidents, and their past criminal records. Westword also came up with a juicy tidbit about the workings of the national FBI database of DNA called CODIS:
Spending $150,000 to prevent 10,000 burglaries a year seems like a no brainer.
Also, unlike most programs designed to get tough on crime, this doesn’t have a strong civil liberties downside. If your DNA shows up in a house of a burglary victim (or even more persuasive multiple houses of burglary victims), with no good reason, or property in your house has lots of DNA on it from a burglary victim whom you claim that you’ve never met, the odds are overwhelming that you are guilty. Eye witness and confession evidence is far less reliable, and for better or for worse, I trust the guys in the CSI department to be more honest than the guy who arrested a suspect in the middle of the night.
Something on the order of 95% of people who are arrested either plea guilty or are convicted of some crime. But, the vast majority of mid-level felonies never result in an arrest. Burglary has the lowest clearance rate of any national crime index crime, with just 12.7% of burglaries "cleared" (i.e. solved) in 2001, according to the FBI.
Even a 100% conviction rate for people who are arrested doesn’t have much of a deterrent effect if you almost never catch anyone committing the crime. Philosophically, this program is similar to last legislative sessions proposal to eliminate the death penalty in Colorado so that the money saved could be used to pursue cold murder cases.
After Denver police nabbed a man who later admitted to more than 1,000 burglaries, the burglary rate in West Washington Park plunged about 40 percent . . . . Cases where DNA is present also draw higher sentences for habitual burglars. The average sentence for burglars linked by DNA is 12 years, compared with six months without it. . . . In Denver, more than 40 habitual burglars have been caught since the program from the National Institute of Justice began in November 2005 . . . And each habitual burglar commits about 243 burglaries per year[.]
This may be press release journalism on the Denver Post’s part (they didn't even bother to identify the West Washington Park burglar by name), uncritically taken from one point of view, but when a single arrest reduces burglaries 40% in my neighborhood, I pay attention. The fact that my son’s bike was stolen off the front porch, that I’ve had my car radio stolen a couple of times, and that I know someone who has experienced multiple burglaries in my neighborhood contribute to my interest. Jessica Centers at Westword did an in depth investigation of the story -- the burglars in my neighborhood were David Weller and his wife Dina Weller. David got 36 years in prison, and his wife was awaiting sentencing when the Westword story went to print in September of 2006.
Presumably, the higher sentences are because the offenders can be better linked to multiple incidents, and their past criminal records. Westword also came up with a juicy tidbit about the workings of the national FBI database of DNA called CODIS:
A study in Florida . . . found that 52 percent of individuals with CODIS profiles who had been convicted of murder or sexual assault had prior convictions for burglary.
Spending $150,000 to prevent 10,000 burglaries a year seems like a no brainer.
Also, unlike most programs designed to get tough on crime, this doesn’t have a strong civil liberties downside. If your DNA shows up in a house of a burglary victim (or even more persuasive multiple houses of burglary victims), with no good reason, or property in your house has lots of DNA on it from a burglary victim whom you claim that you’ve never met, the odds are overwhelming that you are guilty. Eye witness and confession evidence is far less reliable, and for better or for worse, I trust the guys in the CSI department to be more honest than the guy who arrested a suspect in the middle of the night.
Something on the order of 95% of people who are arrested either plea guilty or are convicted of some crime. But, the vast majority of mid-level felonies never result in an arrest. Burglary has the lowest clearance rate of any national crime index crime, with just 12.7% of burglaries "cleared" (i.e. solved) in 2001, according to the FBI.
Even a 100% conviction rate for people who are arrested doesn’t have much of a deterrent effect if you almost never catch anyone committing the crime. Philosophically, this program is similar to last legislative sessions proposal to eliminate the death penalty in Colorado so that the money saved could be used to pursue cold murder cases.
Trouble In Waco
Anytime you complain about the Courts in Colorado, it pays to look at how much worse it could get, and often the comparison is in Texas, where judges are selected in partisan elections. Consider Chief Justice Tom Gray, a Republican, of the division of the Texas Court of Appeals located in Waco, Texas.
One of the other two judges in the Court is a Democrat (Bill Vance), the other a Republican (Felipe Reyna) who usually sides with the Democrat.
The Waco Appeals court is often reversed on appeal, 95% of the time in cases where Justice Gray dissented, but "the higher courts agreed with Gray no more than 25 percent of the time last year in cases in which he wrote a dissent." The reversals were often unrelated to issues upon which he dissented.
Gray's statements are quite quotable, and largely inappropriate for a judge. They include:
In 2005, the 80 appellate judges on the state’s 14 intermediate appellate courts wrote a total of 226 dissenting opinions. Gray wrote 107 of them, or 47 percent. Last year, Gray wrote 49 dissenting opinions, 26 percent of the statewide total of 190. So far this year, Gray has written 58 dissenting opinions, or 48 percent of the statewide 120 written thus far.
From 2000 to 2003, Gray, elected to the court in 1999 and formerly from Navarro County, averaged 25 dissents a year. In those same years, Vance, a former Brazos County judge elected to the court in 1990, averaged seven dissenting opinions annually.
By contrast, in 1997, when Rex Davis was chief justice, the entire court, which included Vance and Justice Bob Cummings, wrote 7 dissenting opinions. The year before, that same court issued six dissenting opinions.
In 1994, when Bob Thomas was chief justice, he, Vance and Cummings wrote a total of three dissenting opinions. The year before, Vance wrote five, Thomas wrote two, and Cummings wrote none.
One of the other two judges in the Court is a Democrat (Bill Vance), the other a Republican (Felipe Reyna) who usually sides with the Democrat.
The Waco Appeals court is often reversed on appeal, 95% of the time in cases where Justice Gray dissented, but "the higher courts agreed with Gray no more than 25 percent of the time last year in cases in which he wrote a dissent." The reversals were often unrelated to issues upon which he dissented.
Gray's statements are quite quotable, and largely inappropriate for a judge. They include:
“It is hard to imagine how the majority could make more errors in a single proceeding.”
“It is impossible for me to convey the level to which I am disappointed by my colleagues. ... Their action shows that they have no regard for the rules of appellate procedure, and, therefore, no respect for the rule of law.”
“If the majority is going to throw the rule book away, then they should tell the world so litigants, and I, for that matter, understand what we are doing.”
"As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly," Gray writes, quoting Proverbs 26:11.
"Dear City of Waco. Sorry to put you through this, but you are going to have to go to the Supreme Court in Austin, again. The Tenth Court of Appeals in Waco has some problems right now that I hope are fixed real soon. But for now, you are in the appellate district that was reversed in 2006 more often than any other appellate court in Texas. I have done what I could, by writing lots of dissenting opinions, but it has not really helped the situation any."
"Like a first-year law student, the majority leaps directly to the issue of the remedy. ... The majority's order is ill-conceived, poorly thought out and will be difficult for others to implement. It is a testament to a failure in the system."
"How far will the majority pervert the rules to help Carl Long? A long, long, very long way."
"What I do mind is the majority's schizophrenic application of the rules based upon factors which I cannot identify, determine, assess, or evaluate."
"If Texas was a dartboard, and Waco was the bull's eye, the court's opinion on the third issue hits Ardmore, Oklahoma."
"The majority's opinion glosses over two properly dispositive parts ... in order to publish its 36-page, mediocre law-review article on the merits ..."
"Wrong on the facts. Wrong on the law. Wrong on the result. Because of the timing of what the majority has done, I am unable to explain very much more than that."
"Maybe the majority has forgotten, if they ever knew, what it is like going to trial with $50,000,000 on the line."
"Nevermind the rules just play to win. And hate your neighbor for the shade of his skin. Skip a rope," Gray writes, quoting from the song "Skip a Rope." "I like the rules that apply to everyone. I think that is called equal protection. I do not like it when rules are ignored. I think that is called violating the rule of law. I am not very good at skipping rope."
"It is because dicta has a nasty way of coming back cited to me as a precedential holding. So the only tool which I have to push back with on this type of improper development of the law is my pen, a lone voice crying in the judicial wilderness, begging the majority to please abide by the rule of law."
13 June 2007
Leaving California's Death Row
Since the death penalty was reinstated in California in 1978, there have been 38 death row prisoners who have died of natural causes, 14 who have committed suicide, and 13 who have been executed. According to the Associated Press, linked above:
California's first modern era execution was in 1992, about 14 years after the death penalty was reinstated there. It has averaged less than one execution per year since then.
California's situation isn't all that unusual. Wikipedia has detailed summaries of the current state of affairs. Many death penalty jurisdictions other than California, such as the ordinary court system of the United States federal government, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Oregon, Tennessee and Idaho have death row populations ten times as large or more than the number of executions carried out in the jurisdiction since the death penatly was reinstated. New Jersey has eleven people on death row, Kansas has nine, the U.S. Military has nine, and South Dakota has four, but neither has carried out any executions since the death penalty was reinstated. New Hampshire has a death penalty on the books, but has no one on death row and has never had an execution.
In other words, while 38 states may have death penalties on the books, it is imposed sparingly. Only about 2.5% of people convicted of murder nationwide are sentenced to death, and the highest percentage appears to be in Nevada where 6% of those convicted of murder are sentenced to death.
The percentage of cases where the death penalty is carried out is a huge looming issue. There are about 3,350 people on death row in the United States right now. The U.S. executed 53 people in 2006. At that rate, if no more death sentences are imposed, death row will be empty in 2070.
Incidentially, California's prevention of prison suicides is improving. From the same article:
There are now 666 inmates on death row, according to the Department of Corrections, and executions have been halted now for 16 months by a federal judge who ordered prison officials to revise their lethal injection procedures to ensure inmates don't suffer unnecessarily....the average stay on death row is 17.5 years before execution.
California's first modern era execution was in 1992, about 14 years after the death penalty was reinstated there. It has averaged less than one execution per year since then.
California's situation isn't all that unusual. Wikipedia has detailed summaries of the current state of affairs. Many death penalty jurisdictions other than California, such as the ordinary court system of the United States federal government, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Oregon, Tennessee and Idaho have death row populations ten times as large or more than the number of executions carried out in the jurisdiction since the death penatly was reinstated. New Jersey has eleven people on death row, Kansas has nine, the U.S. Military has nine, and South Dakota has four, but neither has carried out any executions since the death penalty was reinstated. New Hampshire has a death penalty on the books, but has no one on death row and has never had an execution.
In other words, while 38 states may have death penalties on the books, it is imposed sparingly. Only about 2.5% of people convicted of murder nationwide are sentenced to death, and the highest percentage appears to be in Nevada where 6% of those convicted of murder are sentenced to death.
The percentage of cases where the death penalty is carried out is a huge looming issue. There are about 3,350 people on death row in the United States right now. The U.S. executed 53 people in 2006. At that rate, if no more death sentences are imposed, death row will be empty in 2070.
Incidentially, California's prevention of prison suicides is improving. From the same article:
In October, the California prison system instituted a series of reforms to cut the high rate of inmate suicides, which reached a record 43 last year. A federal judge is overseeing the state's treatment of mentally ill and suicidal inmates as a result of a class-action lawsuit by prisoners alleging inadequate care.
12 June 2007
Executions Down In China
China is the execution capitol of the world, and not just because it has the largest population. But, slowly, but meaningfully, it is cutting back on executions. From 10,000-15,000 executions a year, the numbers may have fallen as low as 7,500 and could fall 20%-30% with new legal reforms. Exact information on executions in China is a state secret and even Amnesty International can only specifically identify a little over 1,000 executions a year even though it knows that this is just the tip of the iceberg. The coming Olympic games in China are only one factor in the change in the still evolving legal and political system of China.
At 7,500 executions a year, China's execution rate is comparable to having 1,875 or so executions a year with a population equal to that of the United States (i.e. an order of magnitude more than the U.S. rate which has 50 executions a year), or 144 executions a year in Texas (even Texas doesn't have an execution rate that high).
There may be a few small Islamic countries with higher execution rates than China, but not many. Even with a 20-30% drop, China's execution rate will still be very high by international standards. But, a 20%-30% drop in Chinese executions would reduce executions worldwide by more than the total number of executions carried out by every other country in the world combined that still has the death penalty. In 2006, there were fewer than 600 executions carried out in all countries other than China combined.
At 7,500 executions a year, China's execution rate is comparable to having 1,875 or so executions a year with a population equal to that of the United States (i.e. an order of magnitude more than the U.S. rate which has 50 executions a year), or 144 executions a year in Texas (even Texas doesn't have an execution rate that high).
There may be a few small Islamic countries with higher execution rates than China, but not many. Even with a 20-30% drop, China's execution rate will still be very high by international standards. But, a 20%-30% drop in Chinese executions would reduce executions worldwide by more than the total number of executions carried out by every other country in the world combined that still has the death penalty. In 2006, there were fewer than 600 executions carried out in all countries other than China combined.
Blogger Autosave Bug
Arg! I hate blogger autosave. The script has a bug in it as applied to my computer and you can't turn the damn new feature off. So, I get error messages several times a minute that I am clueless to fix.
Forty Years Of Love
Today is the 40th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia, which held that bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional. My life would be much more difficult right now without that case.
Splitsville in Motown
First Daimler-Chrysler paid a Canadian investment banking group that also purchased a majority stake in GMAC to take Chrysler off its hands. Chrysler isn’t doing well.
Now, Ford has put Volvo, Land Rover and Jaguar on the auction block. Volvo and Land Rover make money. Ford, Lincoln and Jaguar lose money. Overall, the combined Ford operation lost $12.6 billion, about $10.3 billion of which comes from Ford and Lincoln. Lincoln has gone from #1 in luxury sales to #7 since 1998. Ford’s business model built around making profits on pickup trucks and SUVs in North America is about as ill suited for our current raging gas prices as you could get.
Will General Motors be next? GM has already spun off half of GMAC and all of Suzuki, as well as its Delphi parts unit. It has also shut down its Oldsmobile division. But, it is still floundering. Its North American division still loses money for essentially the same reasons that Ford is losing money. The European and Asian divisions pick up the slack to leave GM with a slight profit per vehicle. Also, General Motors still hasn't overcome absolutely abysmal branding issues. It is losing market share and yet still competing with itself, instead of the other guys.
These companies need radical change. It is so bad that today’s editorial cartoon (available in a couple of days online) portrays domestic resistance to fuel efficiency improvements as something as almost as absurd as the association of Italian prisoners seeking to reinstate the death penalty so that they can be executed.
All of this is bad news for Motown. Big Three Market share is dropping and investors don’t want to waste the profitable parts of the automobile industry on subsidizing the unprofitable parts. And, the unprofitable market share shedding parts, it turns out, are the ones with factories in greater Detroit, rather than the ones with factories in rural Ohio or Mississipi.
Still, it may be good news for departing Volvo, Land Rover and Jaguar. Ford has greatly improved Jaguar’s visibility on American streets, but trashed its reputation for quality. Volvo and Land Rover would likely have followed if the companies had remained consolidated. The papers don’t know how bad the losses are at Jaguar, but if Volvo and Land Rover are both making even thin profits, and the three brand division is losing $2.3 billion, then Jaguar has to be losing at least $2.3 billion all by itself, and Jaguar doesn’t have a lot of cars to spread that loss over. Even if it made 230,000 cars a year, which I doubt, it would be losing $10,000 per vehicle. Even in luxury class those numbers are hard to sustain.
Now, Ford has put Volvo, Land Rover and Jaguar on the auction block. Volvo and Land Rover make money. Ford, Lincoln and Jaguar lose money. Overall, the combined Ford operation lost $12.6 billion, about $10.3 billion of which comes from Ford and Lincoln. Lincoln has gone from #1 in luxury sales to #7 since 1998. Ford’s business model built around making profits on pickup trucks and SUVs in North America is about as ill suited for our current raging gas prices as you could get.
Will General Motors be next? GM has already spun off half of GMAC and all of Suzuki, as well as its Delphi parts unit. It has also shut down its Oldsmobile division. But, it is still floundering. Its North American division still loses money for essentially the same reasons that Ford is losing money. The European and Asian divisions pick up the slack to leave GM with a slight profit per vehicle. Also, General Motors still hasn't overcome absolutely abysmal branding issues. It is losing market share and yet still competing with itself, instead of the other guys.
These companies need radical change. It is so bad that today’s editorial cartoon (available in a couple of days online) portrays domestic resistance to fuel efficiency improvements as something as almost as absurd as the association of Italian prisoners seeking to reinstate the death penalty so that they can be executed.
All of this is bad news for Motown. Big Three Market share is dropping and investors don’t want to waste the profitable parts of the automobile industry on subsidizing the unprofitable parts. And, the unprofitable market share shedding parts, it turns out, are the ones with factories in greater Detroit, rather than the ones with factories in rural Ohio or Mississipi.
Still, it may be good news for departing Volvo, Land Rover and Jaguar. Ford has greatly improved Jaguar’s visibility on American streets, but trashed its reputation for quality. Volvo and Land Rover would likely have followed if the companies had remained consolidated. The papers don’t know how bad the losses are at Jaguar, but if Volvo and Land Rover are both making even thin profits, and the three brand division is losing $2.3 billion, then Jaguar has to be losing at least $2.3 billion all by itself, and Jaguar doesn’t have a lot of cars to spread that loss over. Even if it made 230,000 cars a year, which I doubt, it would be losing $10,000 per vehicle. Even in luxury class those numbers are hard to sustain.
11 June 2007
Al-Marri Wins Habeas Appeal
Al-Marri's case is identical in most material respects legally to the more famous case of Jose Padilla, except that Padilla was a U.S. citizen, while Al-Marri was a legal alien. This makes the 4th Circuit's 2-1 ruling today holding that Al-Marri's detention as an enemy combatant is illegal very significant. Al-Marri is the only person publicly known to be held within the boundaries of the United States as an enemy combatant today.
The ruling holds that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 does not apply to Al-Marri, distinguishing a D.C. Circuit ruling that held that the act stripped courts of jurisdiction over detainees at Guantanamo Bay, basically on the grounds that Al-Marri was not provided with a combat status review tribunal review (and with a heavy hand in favor of Al-Marri to construe the statute in a manner that avoided a constitutional question).
It distinguished the Hamdi and Padilla cases from Al-Marri's case largely on the grounds that both Mr. Hamdi and Mr. Padilla were alleged to have taken up arms in Afghanistan, while Al-Marri was not alleged to have done so. In short, the core holding of the Al-Marri case is that civilians who coordinate with or support an enemy do not by doing so make themselves enemy combatants, even though they may have violated crimes applicable to civilians. Thus, the Civil War case Milligan, rather than Hamdi or Padilla or the World War II cases that underlie the governments case applies.
The ruling for Al-Marri is still narrow. It does not presume to look beyond the government's stated reasons for detaining a person, and does not address whether the courts can be deprived of jurisdiction in similar cases where a Combat Status Review Tribunal is convened by the government for someone detained in the United States (although even the D.C. Circuit holding validating the Military Commissions Act of 2006 ruled on a basis that would imply that in those circumstances that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 would be unconstitutional).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is a conservative venue and had the Padilla case on the books. It could easily have caved in the Al-Marri case as well, most easily on jurisdictional grounds. But, instead, it said that enough was enough.
In the end, the 4th Circuit orders the government is directed to release Al-Marri from military custody within "a reasonable period of time." It may release him entirely, charge him with a crime, commence proceedings to deport him, hold him as a material witness, or hold him for a limited period of time under the Patriot Act. This is less of an option that the Court's ruling would suggest, however. For the charges upon which Al-Marri was originally held, there are serious speedy trial, statute of limitations and time served issues. Should Al-Marri face new charges, there are issues of the taint the evidence against him may have of coercion used in obtaining evidence. Showing that Al-Marri is held in good faith as a material witness is difficult at this point, as he has been out of action for four years making his knowledge stale. And, Patriot Act detention is indeed for a limited period of time. Deportation of Al-Marri to Qatar is probably the most attractive option for the Government if it loses in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The dissent simply finds that the jurisdiction stripping provisions of the Military Commission Act of 2006 is unconstitutional in this case. But, the dissent finds that the enemy combatant designation was proper. The dissent finds that an allegation that someone is a sleeper agent sabateur is good enough.
An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is almost certain (eventually). How it will treat this case is not. Also, the Bush Administration may, as it did in the Padilla case, look for a way to moot this case before it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court as a form of damage control. It probably believed it was going to win this case, or it likely would have done so before a precedential opinion was issued in this case.
Update: SCOTUS Blog reports a request for en banc review in the 4th Circuit by the government, which apparently sees this as more friendly forum than SCOTUS apparently.
The ruling holds that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 does not apply to Al-Marri, distinguishing a D.C. Circuit ruling that held that the act stripped courts of jurisdiction over detainees at Guantanamo Bay, basically on the grounds that Al-Marri was not provided with a combat status review tribunal review (and with a heavy hand in favor of Al-Marri to construe the statute in a manner that avoided a constitutional question).
It distinguished the Hamdi and Padilla cases from Al-Marri's case largely on the grounds that both Mr. Hamdi and Mr. Padilla were alleged to have taken up arms in Afghanistan, while Al-Marri was not alleged to have done so. In short, the core holding of the Al-Marri case is that civilians who coordinate with or support an enemy do not by doing so make themselves enemy combatants, even though they may have violated crimes applicable to civilians. Thus, the Civil War case Milligan, rather than Hamdi or Padilla or the World War II cases that underlie the governments case applies.
The ruling for Al-Marri is still narrow. It does not presume to look beyond the government's stated reasons for detaining a person, and does not address whether the courts can be deprived of jurisdiction in similar cases where a Combat Status Review Tribunal is convened by the government for someone detained in the United States (although even the D.C. Circuit holding validating the Military Commissions Act of 2006 ruled on a basis that would imply that in those circumstances that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 would be unconstitutional).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is a conservative venue and had the Padilla case on the books. It could easily have caved in the Al-Marri case as well, most easily on jurisdictional grounds. But, instead, it said that enough was enough.
In the end, the 4th Circuit orders the government is directed to release Al-Marri from military custody within "a reasonable period of time." It may release him entirely, charge him with a crime, commence proceedings to deport him, hold him as a material witness, or hold him for a limited period of time under the Patriot Act. This is less of an option that the Court's ruling would suggest, however. For the charges upon which Al-Marri was originally held, there are serious speedy trial, statute of limitations and time served issues. Should Al-Marri face new charges, there are issues of the taint the evidence against him may have of coercion used in obtaining evidence. Showing that Al-Marri is held in good faith as a material witness is difficult at this point, as he has been out of action for four years making his knowledge stale. And, Patriot Act detention is indeed for a limited period of time. Deportation of Al-Marri to Qatar is probably the most attractive option for the Government if it loses in the U.S. Supreme Court.
The dissent simply finds that the jurisdiction stripping provisions of the Military Commission Act of 2006 is unconstitutional in this case. But, the dissent finds that the enemy combatant designation was proper. The dissent finds that an allegation that someone is a sleeper agent sabateur is good enough.
An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is almost certain (eventually). How it will treat this case is not. Also, the Bush Administration may, as it did in the Padilla case, look for a way to moot this case before it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court as a form of damage control. It probably believed it was going to win this case, or it likely would have done so before a precedential opinion was issued in this case.
Update: SCOTUS Blog reports a request for en banc review in the 4th Circuit by the government, which apparently sees this as more friendly forum than SCOTUS apparently.
Denver Runoff Election Raw Data
For your convenience, (near) final numbers in the 2007 runoff elections in Denver compared to the first round results.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTRICT 3 - First Round
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- Antoinette Alire 75/ 3,555 2.11%
- Paul D. López 1616/ 3,555 45.46%
- Niccolo Casewit 162/ 3,555 4.56%
- JoAnn Phillips 542/ 3,555 15.25%
- Kathy Sandoval 387/ 3,555 10.89%
- Mark Roggeman 393/ 3,555 11.05%
- Ben Romero 363/ 3,555 10.21%
(Write-In) 17/ 3,555 0.48%
COUNCILMEMBER DISTRICT 3 - Second Round
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- JoAnn Phillips 1275/ 3,339 38.19%
- Paul D. López 2064/ 3,339
Phillips raw change: +733 votes
Lopez raw change: +438 votes
Turnout raw change: -216 votes
COUNCILMEMBER DISTRICT 7 - First Round
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- Shelly Watters 1753/ 6,438 27.23%
- Dennis Smith 428/ 6,438 6.65%
- Chris Nevitt 2990/ 6,438 46.44%
- Julie Connor 1216/ 6,438 18.89%
(Write-In) 51/ 6,438 0.79%
COUNCILMEMBER DISTRICT 7 - Second Round
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- Shelly Watters 2156/ 5,773 37.35%
- Chris Nevitt 3617/ 5,773
Watters raw change: +303 votes
Nevitt raw change: +627 votes
Turnot raw change: -665 votes
COUNCILMEMBER DISTRICT 8 - First Round
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- Darrell B. Watson 1730/ 6,434 26.89%
- Carla Madison 1803/ 6,434 28.02%
- Sharon Bailey 2295/ 6,434 35.67%
- Greg Rasheed 487/ 6,434 7.57%
(Write-In) 119/ 6,434 1.85%
COUNCILMEMBER DISTRICT 8 - Second Round
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- Carla Madison 2816/ 5,452 51.65%
- Sharon Bailey 2636/ 5,452
Madison raw change: +1013 votes
Bailey raw change: +341 votes
Turnout raw change: -982 votes
A heuristically useful (but factually incorrect) interpretation of these numbers is to assume that:
(1) everyone who voted in round one also voted in round two, and
(2) that everyone who voted for a candidate who made the runoff voted for that person again in round two.
Thus, the raw numbers above can be see as the number of voters for candidates who didn't make the second round who voted for one or the other of the remaining candidates, or in the alternative, voted for neither.
COUNCILMEMBER DISTRICT 3 - First Round
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- Antoinette Alire 75/ 3,555 2.11%
- Paul D. López 1616/ 3,555 45.46%
- Niccolo Casewit 162/ 3,555 4.56%
- JoAnn Phillips 542/ 3,555 15.25%
- Kathy Sandoval 387/ 3,555 10.89%
- Mark Roggeman 393/ 3,555 11.05%
- Ben Romero 363/ 3,555 10.21%
(Write-In) 17/ 3,555 0.48%
COUNCILMEMBER DISTRICT 3 - Second Round
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- JoAnn Phillips 1275/ 3,339 38.19%
- Paul D. López 2064/ 3,339
Phillips raw change: +733 votes
Lopez raw change: +438 votes
Turnout raw change: -216 votes
COUNCILMEMBER DISTRICT 7 - First Round
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- Shelly Watters 1753/ 6,438 27.23%
- Dennis Smith 428/ 6,438 6.65%
- Chris Nevitt 2990/ 6,438 46.44%
- Julie Connor 1216/ 6,438 18.89%
(Write-In) 51/ 6,438 0.79%
COUNCILMEMBER DISTRICT 7 - Second Round
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- Shelly Watters 2156/ 5,773 37.35%
- Chris Nevitt 3617/ 5,773
Watters raw change: +303 votes
Nevitt raw change: +627 votes
Turnot raw change: -665 votes
COUNCILMEMBER DISTRICT 8 - First Round
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- Darrell B. Watson 1730/ 6,434 26.89%
- Carla Madison 1803/ 6,434 28.02%
- Sharon Bailey 2295/ 6,434 35.67%
- Greg Rasheed 487/ 6,434 7.57%
(Write-In) 119/ 6,434 1.85%
COUNCILMEMBER DISTRICT 8 - Second Round
Votes/Total Votes % Votes
- Carla Madison 2816/ 5,452 51.65%
- Sharon Bailey 2636/ 5,452
Madison raw change: +1013 votes
Bailey raw change: +341 votes
Turnout raw change: -982 votes
A heuristically useful (but factually incorrect) interpretation of these numbers is to assume that:
(1) everyone who voted in round one also voted in round two, and
(2) that everyone who voted for a candidate who made the runoff voted for that person again in round two.
Thus, the raw numbers above can be see as the number of voters for candidates who didn't make the second round who voted for one or the other of the remaining candidates, or in the alternative, voted for neither.
Wrongful Conviction Rates
My criminal procedure professor evaluates wrongful conviction rates for the Wall Street Journal. The best evidence puts the wrongful conviction rate for serious felonies at 2.3% to 3.3% (one source says 7% but it has far too small a sample size to be reliable). He points out clear statistical goofs of Oregon prosecutor Joshua Marquis (.027%) and Colorado District Judge Morris B. Hoffman (.065%).
Is 96.7% to 97.7% good enough? Maybe not: "If as few as 1% of criminal convictions are erroneous, right now there are more than 20,000 innocent defendants behind bars."
Is 96.7% to 97.7% good enough? Maybe not: "If as few as 1% of criminal convictions are erroneous, right now there are more than 20,000 innocent defendants behind bars."
08 June 2007
All They Do Is Help People.
No, not all Christians are the same. What does an evangelical missionary in Cambodia have to say about the Catholic Church?
The gall!
All they do is help people. They’re not really spreading the Good News.
The gall!
Federal Habeas Corpus Statistics
I added a presentation of federal habeas corpus statistics to Wikipedia today.
Dumbing Down MS Word
My current computer project is to dumb down Microsoft Word, and more generally, to strip out useless features and programs from my computer.
I want to banish fonts that I never use. I want to remove from my menus and toolbars all commands that I have no intention of ever using and didn't even ever think to want. I want to remove buttons when I don't know what they do. If I have a button for it, I don't want it in my drop down menus. I want to run the program on a WYSIWYG basis as much as possible.
I want to be ruthless about it. For example, I never, ever print from my laptop. So, why should my laptop version of Microsoft Word have the print option in the file menu?
In short, I want to simplify my life in front of the computer.
It is possible. But, it takes considerable effort, attention and persistance to prevent it from creating bugs. This shouldn't be the case. You should be able to remove 90% of the junk with a single drop down menu, or a wizard, in the customize command. You could choose to select from interface such as "legal," "academic," "business," "full feature," "basic," "technical writing," "internet platform," "publishing," and perhaps a couple other overall choices that could then be modified from there.
I want to banish fonts that I never use. I want to remove from my menus and toolbars all commands that I have no intention of ever using and didn't even ever think to want. I want to remove buttons when I don't know what they do. If I have a button for it, I don't want it in my drop down menus. I want to run the program on a WYSIWYG basis as much as possible.
I want to be ruthless about it. For example, I never, ever print from my laptop. So, why should my laptop version of Microsoft Word have the print option in the file menu?
In short, I want to simplify my life in front of the computer.
It is possible. But, it takes considerable effort, attention and persistance to prevent it from creating bugs. This shouldn't be the case. You should be able to remove 90% of the junk with a single drop down menu, or a wizard, in the customize command. You could choose to select from interface such as "legal," "academic," "business," "full feature," "basic," "technical writing," "internet platform," "publishing," and perhaps a couple other overall choices that could then be modified from there.
06 June 2007
Worst Of The Worst?
Marty Lederman writes:
Dahlia Lithwick, at Slate, further notes, paraphasing and then quoting Phil Zelikow (executive director of the 9/11 commission and until recently a close adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice) that:
Oh, and where was the courtroom? In Guantanamo.
Zelikow's moderate vision, which appears to be supported by both Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Rice, as well as moderate Democrats and Republicans in Congress, appears to have been trumped by Dick Cheney, the least popular politician on the national scene in the United States, whose former chief of staff is a convicted criminal. But, Cheney has the ear of the President, and the President has no moral backbone of his own, and only moderate intelligence.
The hard core conservative element of the Bush Administration has been mostly purged in favor of true reactionaries and those who are amoral and truly craven -- bar a few remaining leftovers like the Military Commission judges who were hand picked for their loyalty and conservatism.
According to Phil Zelikow, under the Administration's "new paradigm," military commission trials are supposed to be reserved for the big fish directly involved in terrorist activities, against whom such trials have historically been used -- "for major war criminals and al Qaeda’s leaders."
That hardly describes this case.
In almost any other armed conflict, the military probably would not think to try even an adult for most of the sort of battlefield conduct at issue here. It appears that the only difference in this case is that Khadr was not in uniform -- which hardly seems a good enough reason to treat his battlefield combatancy as a war crime. (The spying charge, on the other hand, is similar to charges that have been tried by military tribunals in past conflicts.)
Moreover, Khadr was fifteen years old when we captured him. As Victor Hansen and Lawrence Friedman write:
"Even assuming that Omar Khadr did in fact throw a grenade at U.S. forces during a firefight in Afghanistan, he clearly does not fit into the category of the “worst of the worst” that the administration claims are being detained and prosecuted at Guantanamo. At most, he was a 15 year-old foot soldier doing the bidding of much more dangerous and culpable terrorists. . . . Why . . . is the U.S. spending time, effort and resources, and squandering what little international goodwill it may still enjoy, on prosecuting a 15-year-old alleged foot soldier of Al Qaeda? Why weren’t these foot soldiers “turned” and used to go after mid-level and senior members of Al Qaeda? . . . . It seems to us that this prosecution of Omar Khadr is really emblematic of the complete failure of Guantanamo and the military commissions system. While many of the “worst of the worst” remain at large, the U.S. seeks to prosecute a child by military commission who, if he were an American citizen would not be subject to courts-martial jurisdiction because of his age."
Dahlia Lithwick, at Slate, further notes, paraphasing and then quoting Phil Zelikow (executive director of the 9/11 commission and until recently a close adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice) that:
Of the nine elements of this "new paradigm" . . . one was to "close Guantanamo," and another was "employing these military commissions for major war criminals and al Qaeda's leaders, not Osama's driver." And who did Brownbeck and Allred see in their courtrooms yesterday morning? Osama's driver. And a Canadian kid who allegedly threw a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier.
Oh, and where was the courtroom? In Guantanamo.
Zelikow's moderate vision, which appears to be supported by both Secretary of Defense Gates and Secretary of State Rice, as well as moderate Democrats and Republicans in Congress, appears to have been trumped by Dick Cheney, the least popular politician on the national scene in the United States, whose former chief of staff is a convicted criminal. But, Cheney has the ear of the President, and the President has no moral backbone of his own, and only moderate intelligence.
The hard core conservative element of the Bush Administration has been mostly purged in favor of true reactionaries and those who are amoral and truly craven -- bar a few remaining leftovers like the Military Commission judges who were hand picked for their loyalty and conservatism.
News From Oberlin
Oberlin brought me good and bad news this week. This observation in the math department alumni newsletter made by day:
-- Arthur T. White, Oberlin College class of 1961.
The bad news, an Oberlin alumna was investigated by the FBI and New York City police department terrorism task for based on obviously humorous statements on her myspace page and those of a friend of hers (her Daily Kos diary on the subject was the most recommended at the popular site for a while).
Here's a proof that we can be optimistic about love in the world:
Pull the petals off a daisy, one by one, alternating "She loves me," "She loves me not," etc. (Substitute the pronoun of your choice.) We would like to end with "She loves me," which requires an odd number of petals. It is known that the number of petals on a daisy is a Fibonacci number. But two-thirds of the Fibonacci numers are odd (exercise), so QED.
-- Arthur T. White, Oberlin College class of 1961.
The bad news, an Oberlin alumna was investigated by the FBI and New York City police department terrorism task for based on obviously humorous statements on her myspace page and those of a friend of hers (her Daily Kos diary on the subject was the most recommended at the popular site for a while).
05 June 2007
Denver Runoff Election Results.
The results from Denver's runoff election are in:
Chris Nevitt has defeated Shelley Watters in Council District 7, receiving about 63% of the vote. The result was not surprising. Nevitt came close to winning in the first round and had a strong lead over Watters at that point, so he needed only a minority of voters who had cast votes for other candidates.
Paul Lopez has defeated JoAnn Phillips in Council District 3, receiving about 61% of the vote. The next question in that race is whether challenges that have been made to Mr. Lopez's eligiblity to serve as a council member on the basis of a residency dispute will unseat him, creating a vacancy, or fizzle out. JoAnn Phillips had the endorsement of the Denver Post, but had a weak campaign.
As of 8:51 p.m., Carla Madison, who made it into the second round by only about 75 votes, has upset Sharon Bailey, in the race for Council District 8, garnering about 52% of the vote. Reports at the Denver Politics blog prior to today had shown Madison effectively getting out the vote in her strongholds, while Bailey's campaign was less effective at getting neighborhoods where her support was strong to cast their ballots. In the first round, Bailey came in first place despite not having run an expensive campaign, in part, because she escaped untarnished from the smears in that race. While the percentage lead is small, it is large enough that this result is unlikely to be flipped later this evening. Madison's support is strongest in the areas near the central business district, while Bailey's support was stronger in other parts of North Denver that are part of the District.
The runoff marks a win for labor, which strongly supported both Nevitt and Lopez in their campaigns.
Turnout appears to have been marginally lower in all three runoff races than it was in the first round of voting, although this may be a product of incomplete results at this hour.
My analysis of the races at the end of the previous round of voting can be found here.
Chris Nevitt has defeated Shelley Watters in Council District 7, receiving about 63% of the vote. The result was not surprising. Nevitt came close to winning in the first round and had a strong lead over Watters at that point, so he needed only a minority of voters who had cast votes for other candidates.
Paul Lopez has defeated JoAnn Phillips in Council District 3, receiving about 61% of the vote. The next question in that race is whether challenges that have been made to Mr. Lopez's eligiblity to serve as a council member on the basis of a residency dispute will unseat him, creating a vacancy, or fizzle out. JoAnn Phillips had the endorsement of the Denver Post, but had a weak campaign.
As of 8:51 p.m., Carla Madison, who made it into the second round by only about 75 votes, has upset Sharon Bailey, in the race for Council District 8, garnering about 52% of the vote. Reports at the Denver Politics blog prior to today had shown Madison effectively getting out the vote in her strongholds, while Bailey's campaign was less effective at getting neighborhoods where her support was strong to cast their ballots. In the first round, Bailey came in first place despite not having run an expensive campaign, in part, because she escaped untarnished from the smears in that race. While the percentage lead is small, it is large enough that this result is unlikely to be flipped later this evening. Madison's support is strongest in the areas near the central business district, while Bailey's support was stronger in other parts of North Denver that are part of the District.
The runoff marks a win for labor, which strongly supported both Nevitt and Lopez in their campaigns.
Turnout appears to have been marginally lower in all three runoff races than it was in the first round of voting, although this may be a product of incomplete results at this hour.
My analysis of the races at the end of the previous round of voting can be found here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)