Racial Exhaustion in the New York Times

Ross Douthat's op-ed on race, published in the New York Times, reads like a piece of science fiction. Although Douthat makes well worn arguments about the perils of affirmative action, his ultimate conclusion that class-based measures should replace race in social policy rests on a description of America's near future that is utter fantasy.

Racial Exhaustion
Douthat frames his essay around Justice O'Connor's opinion for the Court in a 2006 case that upheld the use of race-based affirmative action in higher education. Near the end of the opinion, O'Connor expresses a hope that in 25 years, affirmative action would be unnecessary. Douthat agrees with O'Connor's sentiment.

But that decision was not the first time the Supreme Court fantasized about the diminishing need for race-based public policy. The first judicial expression of this mistaken view occurred in an 1883 opinion that invalidated the first federal statute banning racial discrimination in places of public accommodation. In the face of dramatic racial inequality, the Court opined that ongoing measures to address racial inequality were no longer necessary and that these provisions were simply handouts that made blacks the "special favorites of the law."

Similarly, immediately after the Civil War, conservative members of Congress contested policies designed to provide food, shelter, and protection to the former slaves on the grounds that the war and the abolition of slavery had ended the nation's racial issues and that these policies harmed whites and made blacks lazy. Racial exhaustion rhetoric (see my recent law review article on the subject) has existed throughout the history of the United States. It is unclear why Douthat believes his plea for the end of race-based measures sits outside of this long history of racial denial.

Obama's and Sotomayor's America
Douthat notes that some critics have argued that Sonia Sotomayor's treatment by conservatives proves the salience of race in the United States. In response, Douthat asserts that:

[T]he [Republican] senators are yesterday’s men. The America of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is swiftly giving way to the America of Sonia Maria Sotomayor and Barack Hussein Obama.

And just where are all of these budding black presidents and wise Latina Supreme Court justices? According to Douthat, they are the inevitable consequence of population increases among persons of color and the likely nonwhite "national majority" by 2042. Numbers alone, however, do not translate into material well being or even political power (just ask South Africans -- or poor Latinos in Texas). And having a black President and a Latina on the Supreme Court does not mean that race has become socially irrelevant. Oprah Winfrey, a black woman, is one of the richest persons in the world. Under Douthat's individualized approach to the question of inequality, women of color should have indisputable economic power. Instead, they are the poorest segment of the United States population.

Furthermore, Sotomayor and Obama both benefited from affirmative action. According to Douthat, however, their great success disproves, rather than proves, the necessity of race-based affirmative action.

Race "or" Class
Douthat makes a valid point regarding the importance of class-based remedies. But the class proponents (Douthat is not the first) never justify their "either/or" formulation. Most sociological data on the subject, however, indicate that race and class both shape the experiences of the nation's poor persons of color. And while they would certainly benefit from economic policies (see William Julius Wilson's "When Work Disappears") the persistence of poverty among persons of color results from more than race or class alone.

The proponents of the class approach also ignore the significant public hostility to anti-poverty policies and the fact that "programs for the poor" often morph into "programs for lazy and undeserving blacks and Latinos" in public discourse. According to very popular political rhetoric, undeserving black and Latino "subprime" mortgage-holders singlehandedly caused the global economic and financial crisis. Also, "welfare" supposedly ruins the economy because it leads black women to have more children than they can afford, mistakenly believing that an extra 100 bucks a month is worth the hassle. Although most women who receive welfare are white, they are largely invisible in conservative discourse.

Even in the area of public education, where class-based policies could have a tremendous impact, the political will for egalitarian measures is not strong enough. For example, despite the inequities that result from using property taxes to fund public schools, most states continue to utilize this approach, which the Supreme Court validated in 1973.

The conditions in public schools also counsel against an approach that attempts to separate race from class. Public schools have become highly "resegregated" in the last decade. Schools that have largely black and Latino student populations are also "poverty schools," while schools with predominately white student populations are likely middle-class and higher-income schools. The race-poverty schools are grossly underfunded, are revolving doors for teachers, and they rank at the bottom in most measures of pupil success (This has nothing to do with the availability of affirmative action -- as conservatives falsely argue). Due to racial residential segregation, poor students of color are more likely than poor whites to attend poverty schools.

Nevertheless, in 2007, the Court invalidated policies in two school districts, which sought to remedy the harmful effects of resegregation. The majority held that the school assignment policies, which included an innocuous racial "tie-breaker" -- if a long list of other measures failed -- were too broad. The four most conservative justices argued that states did not even have a "compelling interest" in remedying racial isolation in public schools (despite all of the problems that correlate with it). The problem of racially isolated poverty schools is much more severe in "liberal" states in the Northeast, Midwest and West Coast -- despite those states having large populations of persons of color.

Conclusion
Although Douthat probably formed his views on the subject of race before Obama's election, he seems to read too much into the historical fact of the nation's first black president. He also fails to consider the substantive and political limits of a class-based approach to equality. Douthat also exaggerates the relevance of increasing numbers of persons of color to their overall well being. Accordingly, Douthat's vision of America's near future remains simply that: a vision.

Republicans' Latest "New" Strategy on Sotomayor Is Another Loser

After initially describing Judge Sonia Sotomayor as a racist, intellectual lightweight, and a judicial fireball, Republicans have struggled to find a consistent and workable strategy to oppose her without causing serious political damage to the GOP. Opinion polls continue to show that a majority of the public supports Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court. More ominously for Republicans, polls also find that Latinos overwhelmingly support Sotomayor's prospective appointment.

Moreover, assuming the accuracy of a recent Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll, Latino support for the GOP has declined from an already abysmal level since conservatives began attacking Sotomayor. The poll indicates that only blacks have a lower opinion of the Republican Party than Latinos. Just 3% of blacks and 8% of Latinos view the party favorably, while 31% of whites hold a favorable opinion of the GOP. If the situation does not improve for Republicans, Obama will win the presidency again, and Congressional Democrats will perform well in midterm elections.

The Republicans' Evolving "Sonia Strategy"
Because the Republicans' early attacks on Sotomayor failed, they have repeatedly attempted to retool their approaches. For example, Senate Republicans have distanced themselves from statements by conservatives, like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, which described Sotomayor as a racist. Some of them have also described personal meetings with Sotomayor in positive terms. Furthermore, several Senate Republicans have emphasized the need to scrutinize her judicial record, rather than focusing on snippets of text from speeches she has delivered.

Now, with Sotomayor's confirmation hearings scheduled to begin on July 13, Republicans have possibly finalized their strategy. According to the Associated Press, Republicans will question Sotomayor regarding her "commitment" to the Second Amendment, property rights, and equal protection. While a focus on legal issues would represent an improvement over earlier discourse surrounding Sotomayor, this tactic will likely fail to raise any serious questions regarding Sotomayor's fitness for the Supreme Court or any major political opposition to her nomination.

Sotomayor's Judicial Record Does Not Warrant Opposition to Her Nomination
The new Republican strategy will likely fail because Sotomayor's judicial record does not warrant opposition to her nomination. Sotomayor has served as a federal judge without controversy for fifteen years. If she were an incompetent ideologue who did not care about the Constitution, a public record documenting this narrative would already exist. Accordingly, Republicans will have to make strained arguments as they try to raise questions about Sotomayor's commitment to the Constitution (which is an ambiguous concept).

Furthermore, the specific issues that Republicans have isolated as potentially raising questions about Sotomayor (the right to bear arms, property rights, and equal protection) do not present any real problems when viewed with intellectual honesty and nonpartisanship.

Specific Issue: Right to Bear Arms
Conservatives have already attempted to portray Sotomayor as a judge who does not respect the right to bear arms. They specifically cite an opinion issued by a 3-judge panel of the Second Circuit (Sotomayor sat on the panel) which concludes that the Second Amendment does not create an "individual" right to bear arms, but that it empowers "states" to establish militias. Although conservatives and pro-gun organizations and individuals oppose this conclusion, legal historians, judges, and legal scholars have debated this specific question for over a century.

Last year, the Supreme Court finally resolved this debate with its ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. In a very divided, 5-4 opinion, the Court found that the Second Amendment creates an "individual" (rather than a "state") right. Nevertheless, the fact that four sitting justices on the Supreme Court reached the same conclusion as the Second Circuit panel means that Sotomayor's acceptance of the state right position cannot make her unfit for a position on the Supreme Court.

Subsequent to the Heller decision, another 3-judge panel of the Second Circuit, which included Sotomayor, held that the Second Amendment only constrains the federal government, not state governments, and that outside of the Second Amendment, the Constitution does not secure a "fundamental right" to bear arms. Conservatives have engaged in extreme distortion and hypocrisy in their critiques of this ruling.

It is abundantly clear that the specific liberty interests contained in the Bill of Rights were created to limit the federal government -- not the states. This has been the uninterrupted doctrine of the Supreme Court since the 1833 ruling in Barron v. Baltimore. Also, the text of the Bill of Rights supports this conclusion. The First Amendment, for example, explicitly prohibits "Congress" (not the states) from impairing freedom of speech and religion. Furthermore, the Bill of Rights was proposed and ratified because anti-federalists feared that the proposed Constitution, which would significantly expand federal power, would permit the national government to abuse individual liberty. The Bill of Rights served as a political compromise designed to secure ratification of the Constitution in light of strong dissent in several states.

Despite this clear history -- and conservative rhetoric about the virtues of following original intent -- Sotomayor's opponents have criticized her for agreeing that the Second Amendment only constrains the national government. The Supreme Court has, on a case by case basis, concluded that many of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights are "incorporated" by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment -- which makes them enforceable against the states. Neither the text nor the history surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment, however, supports this conclusion. Also, most of the Supreme Court rulings that expanded rights through incorporation were issued by the Warren Court, which many conservatives believe symbolizes the horrors of "liberal" "judicial activism." Nevertheless, conservatives fault Sotomayor for declining to emulate the Warren Court and conclude that the Second Amendment is an incorporated right.

Conservative opposition to the Second Circuit ruling is even more problematic in light of the fact that it strictly follows existing Supreme Court precedent which holds that the Second Amendment is not incorporated. Although this case law is dated, it is still "good law." Finally, a panel of three well respected conservative judges in the Seventh Circuit recently followed the lead of the Second Circuit and refused to hold that the Second Amendment is incorporated. The conservative Seventh Circuit ruling specifically cites the Second Circuit decision that conservatives have sued to brand Sotomayor as a dangerous opponent of gun rights.

Remaining Issues and the "Real Deal"
The other issues that Republicans plan to use in their "Sonia Strategy" have been dissected elsewhere. The constitutional law blog Text and History, for example, offers an erudite two-part analysis that powerfully rebuts conservative efforts to portray Sotomayor as hostile to property rights. Many other blogs, including Dissenting Justice, have addressed Sotomayor's case law and personal opinions regarding race and sex.

Despite the foregoing legal analysis, politics probably explains better than anything else why the Republicans' latest Sonia Strategy will not work. Democrats control the Senate. The public supports Sotomayor. Senate Democrats will support Obama on this issue. Barring any unexpected developments, this case is almost closed.

For an extensive listing of links to commentary regarding Sotomayor on Dissenting Justice, CLICK HERE.

THIS IS NOT CHANGE

As much as some political commentators try to dismiss the role of race (and gender) in the 2008 presidential election, the facts say otherwise. Obama won the election on the strength of women, black and Latino voters. McCain won a majority of white votes nationally, as has every other Republican candidate starting with the 1968 election.

During his campaign, Obama tried to downplay and market his race simultaneously. He ran as the "historic" candidate, which subtly referenced his racial background. He also ran as the post-racial candidate, in order to avoid being racialized and dismissed as the "black" candidate. Despite its sometimes subtle presence, race played a very powerful role in Obama's candidacy, message and election victory.

Although Obama relied upon identity politics for his electoral success, the White House is instructing GLBT, Latino and women's groups to kill the identity talk. Several GLBT, Latino and women's civil rights groups have urged the president to pick a candidate who will enhance the Court's diversity. No openly gay or Latino person has ever sat on the Supreme Court. Only two women (both white) have occupied a seat on the Court. And two black men have also served on the Court.

I agree that the candidate should not look like a "token" hire, but there are many persons of color, women, and GLBT lawyers who would make excellent Supreme Court justices. There is absolutely nothing wrong with considering diversity as a factor among evenly talented candidates. Reagan appointed the first woman, and gender played an explicit role in the selection process. Bush I appointed the second black justice only after the first black justice retired. Perhaps that was a mere coincidence.

Despite this history, White House officials sound more like Republicans picking a justice than Democrats. They are falling for the utterly hypocritical, ahistorical, and self-serving conservative rhetoric that condemns the consideration of ideology in the appointments process. Apparently, Alito, Roberts, and Scalia are coincidentally conservative.

Now the White House is doing its best to toss aside the very identity-based movements and politics that won the election for Obama. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says that: "I don’t think that the lobbying of interest groups will help. . . .I think in many ways lobbying can – and will –be counterproductive." Of course, Gibbs never identifies the dangers the groups create by stating their preference for diversity. Also, it seems odd that Gibbs would disparage "special interest" groups, when labor, civil rights, feminist, pro-choice, anti-war, glbt, and many other "interest groups" are essential components of the Democratic Party. Without their support, neither Obama nor Gibbs would have a job at the White House.

This is not change.

More on the Man of Steele: Can the Unexpected Hip-Hopster Bring People of Color to the GOP?

Yesterday, Michael Steele's Washington Times interview caused even yours truly -- a staunch progressive -- to take notice. Steele's plan to market conservative ideology to black and Latino urbanites intrigued me, but it also left me doubting that he could accomplish this mission. Although many blacks embrace some socially conservative agendas (e.g., soft on gay rights), the vast majority of blacks have preferred Democratic candidates over Republicans since FDR.

Black Voters' Candidate Preference
I have always believed that if Steele (or anyone else with a magic wand) could make the GOP more moderate and take the party closer to its "Rockefeller Republican" days, then he could perhaps modestly broaden the party's base. The Republican Party was not always synonymous with social conservatism, and the Democratic Party did not begin to monopolize black votes until the 1930s. The Republican Party sided with slaves over slaveowners, fought to establish racial equality after the end of the Civil War, and embraced civil rights legislation in the 1960s.

The Democratic Party, by contrast, supported slavery and excluded blacks from participating in politics through a host of legislative schemes (not to mention violence and intimidation). And historically, the Democrats, not the Republicans, have led the country into expensive and deadly wars.

Large numbers of blacks moved away from the Republican Party to support FDR, who attracted over 70 percent of the black vote in 1936. Most Democratic presidential candidates have earned the same or a greater percentage of black votes since that time. There was one exception: Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower received nearly 40 percent of the black vote in his first election. Adlai Stevenson, his Democratic opponent, decided to run with a segregationist in order to win white votes in the South. The plan worked - but it cost him black support.

Despite the Roosevelt revolution, around 30 percent of black voters continued to support Republican candidates until 1964, the year Johnson sponsored important civil rights legislation. Since that time, no Republican presidential candidate has earned over 15 percent of black votes. McCain only received 4 percent. He also received only small percentages of Latino and Asian-American votes.

White Voting Patterns, the Southern Strategy and Social Conservatism
After Southern whites fled the Democratic Party in the 1960s, the GOP became increasingly more dependent upon socially conservative voters to win elections. By the time Ronald Reagan defeated Gerald Ford, the moderate wing of the Republican Party had lost much of its influence in defining the party's national political agenda. The party decided to supplant the moderates in order to capture the South's abundant electoral votes.

The "Southern strategy" produced amazing results for the GOP. Bill Clinton is the only two-term Democratic president since Truman. And until Obama's victory, Clinton and Carter were the only two Democrats to win the presidency since 1964. Furthermore, after 1964, no Democratic presidential candidate has won a majority of white votes. Obama did not reverse this trend -- despite the dreamy rhetoric among many pundits which suggests that his election demolished race-based political cleavages.

Advice for Steele: Be Consistent About Governmental Intervention and About "Equality"
Obama's election, party loyalty, and deep distrust of the GOP make Steele's effort to lure persons of color a difficult, if not impossible, task. It would take a great deal of courage, innovation, and reformulation of ideology in order to accomplish modestly this goal.

In order to do this, Steele will likely need to convince Republicans to challenge their rhetoric that seeks to reduce deep social problems to individual pathology. This is a favorite trump card. Every group has "bad" apples - but unless conservatives believe that the majority of blacks and Latinos are bad apples (which is a conversation stopper), then they must remain open to other explanations for and solutions to prolonged inequity across social groups. Conservatives often blame the government for incentivizing people to choose poverty (and this still passes the laugh test), but this is just the extreme opposite of the notion that only governmental solutions can work. Room exists for both approaches.

Governmental Intervention
While many conservatives passionately reject any role for government in reducing class and other types of inequity, they readily invite the government into areas of other people's lives in order to regulate personal choices that seem patently inappropriate for governmental intrusion (and certainly inappropriate for a governmental veto). Many social conservatives, for example, vehemently insist that the government alone should decide the conditions under which a woman terminates a pregnancy. They also want the government to dictate whether or not terminally ill patients continue to receive life-sustaining medical treatment against their family members' or their own wishes. Conservatives have supported making criminals out of people who consent to intimate relationships (sexual or otherwise) with people of the same sex. And they believe that government-waged "wars" can reduce or rid society of drugs, kidnappings, sexual predators, violence, and terrorism.

If the government can accomplish all of these things better than "the people," then just maybe the government can do a few things to create conditions in which all people can have economic autonomy and opportunity. Favoring governmental intervention in order to police people, rather than to foster individual autonomy seems far removed from conservatism.

Social Equality
If Republicans want to broaden their base, they could fill the hole left by Democrats, who have not proposed solutions for substantive inequality -- by which I mean, actually doing something about the conditions of inequality such as poverty, homelessness, unequal schools, etc., rather than simply cheering the party's "diversity."

Conservative discourse already espouses the virtues of equality. When conservatives oppose affirmative action, for example, they do so by invoking the language of "equality." Conservatives presumably value racial equality so greatly that they view university admissions policies that dole out a few "points" to students of color in their applications as being the moral equivalent of the brutal regime of Jim Crow. If this is true, then this principle should lead them to at least the same degree of outrage concerning the detrimental effects of sending black, Latino and many poor white kids to vastly underfunded or racially isolated "poverty schools" (where a majority of the students qualify for "free lunch").

Blaming the children and their families for being locked into these suboptimal conditions contradicts conservative opposition to affirmative action. Instead of telling whites who challenge affirmative action to "suck it up" or accusing them of promoting socialism, conservatives criticize the government for treating people differently (even if only to a small degree).

Final Word
Unless conservatives begin to demand equality of opportunity in all settings and consistently remain open to the possibility of governmental and private solutions, then they will fail to expand their base to include people of color. Of course, I cannot demand that Republicans do these things when the "liberal" party has failed to do so or has done so inconsistently. But it's fun to dream. Also, unless the GOP can top the Democrats, then many people of color will just stay with the familiar.

So, Steele: if you can fit my long rant into a neat conservative package, put a ribbon on it, and sell it to Republicans, then you will have in fact done something "off the hook." Apparently, a "new school" of Republicans catapulted Steele to leadership. Maybe this will give him a chance to shake things up. Good luck!

Man of Steele: RNC Chair Serves Major "Swagger" During Recent Interview

It's hard not to notice RNC Chair Michael Steele's recent interview with The Washington Times. Steele makes some very heavy promises about his plans to revitalize the Republican Party, which several commentators have dismissed as irrelevant. Some of Steele's ideas seem highly ambitious if not utterly impossible (e.g., luring black voters during the Obama era), but he earns points for his surprising "swagger" and for setting an "off the hook" (his words, not mine) agenda.

Here are some interesting clips from The Washington Times interview with Michael Steele:

Newly elected Republican National Committee Chairman Michael S. Steele plans an “off the hook” public relations offensive to attract younger voters, especially blacks and Hispanics. . . .

The RNC's first black chairman [says that he] will “surprise everyone” when updating the party's image using the Internet and advertisements on radio, on television and in print. . . .

"There was underlying concerns we had become too regionalized and the party needed to reach beyond our comfort" zones. . . ."We want to convey that the modern-day GOP looks like the conservative party that stands on principles. But we want to apply them to urban-surburban hip-hop settings.” [Editor's Note: Steele, please let me know how that plan goes!]

"Dissed" by Karl Rove?

At the end of 2006. . .[Karl] Rove nixed a growing movement among RNC members . . . to elect Mr. Steele as their next chairman.

Mr. Rove subsequently left the White House. . .and with President Bush on his way out of the Oval Office, the RNC was free to choose its own chairman instead of rubber-stamping the choice of a Republican White House. [Editor's Note: Is the author a little upset with Rove's prior decision?]

While other former top Bush White House and campaign officials sent congratulations on his election . . . Mr. Rove neither phoned nor wrote his congratulations, Mr. Steele told The Times.

Steele tells detractors to "stuff it."

Top party officials and officeholders have suggested that Mr. Steele name as deputy chairman someone who can run the national committee's vast operations in fundraising, communications, candidate recruitment and training, and voter identification and targeting. [Editor's Note: Overseer? Spy?]

“I can run this organization just fine,” Mr. Steele told The Times. “There will be no deputy chairman, period.”

Still, the talk among some prominent senior Republicans was that Mr. Steele would need someone with “more experience” to provide guidance and organization. . . . . “People who said I can't make the trains run on time never gave a reason. I say to them, 'Stuff it.'"

“The idea I am somehow going to handicap myself before I begin is nuts. I am not going to buy into this mind-set among a few people who probably have never run anything but their mouths.” [Editor's Note: LOL]

My Non-Republican Take: The Dissenting Justice likes "from the hip" commentary (I even liked Howard Dean), so Steele earns big points for this interview. But be careful, Mr. Steele. People do not like losing power or being told to "stuff it." You do not have the same freedom as some loudmouth cantankerous blogger. Finally, the "change" theme is apparently everywhere!

Ruben Navarrette's Flip-Flop: Wrong to Criticize Obama on Warren, Fine to Criticize Obama on Clinton

I became familiar with Ruben Navarrette during the Democratic primaries. He was one of the few Latinos (among the few Latinos who are leading journalists at major papers) who clearly did not like Hillary Clinton.

Navarrette wrote several articles praising Obama and criticizing Clinton. During the general election coverage, however, he wrote about McCain with a somewhat sympathetic eye, even encouraging Latinos to consider voting for him in one article.

After the election ended and Obama began selecting members of his Cabinet, Navarrette wrote a scathing critique of Obama's decision to choose Clinton as Secretary of State. Navarrette believed that Bill Richardson should have received the position instead.

Navarrette challenged Obama's decision to appoint Clinton, arguing that she "doesn't have anywhere near Richardson's level of experience in foreign affairs . . . [and] she treated Obama reprehensibly during the primary. . . ." Navarrette also asserts that because Latino support for Obama was critical for his victory, "they deserve better" than the "parting gift" of Secretary of Commerce -- the position Richardson has accepted.

Although Navarrette passionately criticized Obama's decision to pick Clinton as Secretary of State, he has taken a noticeably different approach towards GLBT and pro-choice advocates who criticize the inclusion of Rick Warren in Obama's inauguration ceremony. Navarrette argues on CNN.Com that these groups should step back and accept Obama's wishes:

This is about a president-elect, who just came off a bruising 21-month campaign, exercising his prerogative to choose whoever he wants to deliver the blessing at his inauguration. It's about -- as President-elect Obama noted this week -- Americans learning to agree to disagree without becoming disagreeable.

It's about those on the left knowing how to win and how to savor victory without giving into the impulse to attack each other. And, finally, it's about recognizing that -- for those who feel like protesting Warren's appearance -- there is an ocean's worth of bigger fish to fry.

It's interesting. Many of those raising a fuss are talking about respect, demanding respect, insisting they're not given respect, etc. Well, that works both ways. If they want respect, they have to give it. They can start by respecting the wishes of the president-elect to plan his inauguration as he sees fit.

Interesting. Navarrette's assertion that Warren's protestors should respect Obama's wishes could have even more force regarding whom he selects for his Cabinet. Because presidents works very closely with Cabinet members, they should have a high degree of discretion to choose candidates they prefer. Also, had Latinos protested Obama's "snub" of Bill Richardson as Navarrette argues they could have legitimately done, this would have constituted the very in-fighting among the Left that Navarrette now condemns. I do not see these situations as materially distinct. Am I missing something?

Waiting at the Alter: Proposition 8 Will Likely Pass, Despite Obama Landslide

In a night that initially looked like it would bring a liberal sweep, California voters have demonstrated that the fight for equality has only entered a new phase for social movement actors. And I say -- let's fight!

With 90% of precincts counted, Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution to define marriage in heterosexual terms, leads by 4 points. While Democrats and younger voters were largely against the measure, 70% of blacks and about 59% of Latinos voted for it. Prior to the election, advocates of Proposition 8 said that they believed higher turnout among blacks and Latinos could help them secure passage of the law. Catholics also strongly supported the measure.

The support of the anti-gay initiative among traditional Democrats proves that Obama's election does not reflect a tremendous ideological shift in the nation. Even in deeply blue California, where Obama won by over 20% of the vote, voters decided to reverse a liberal Supreme Court ruling on gay rights and deny gays and lesbians equal opportunity to marry. I devoted a series of prior blog entries to this subject (see links listed below).

Split Ticket? What California's Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage Means for U.S. Liberals

Strong Support for California Anti-Gay Measure Proves That Many Blue-State Voters Embrace Red Agendas

Anti-Gay Group Thanks Obama, Seeks to Exploit Black Homophobia to Constitutionalize Bigotry