The NYT has a great article on Florida's felon disenfranchisement laws, describing how ex-felons appear before Governor Jeb Bush to have their voting rights restored. The story ends as follows:

Things turned out better for Cecil Taylor, who had been convicted of driving drunk and whose college art teacher came to speak of his potential. After the board asked Mr. Taylor if he had drunk alcohol since his conviction, and Mr. Taylor said he had not, Mr. Bush restored his rights — with a caveat.

"I'm praying that you're not going to start drinking again," Mr. Bush told him. "When we make these decisions, sometimes it puts us in a little bit of a precarious position in that you could let us down."

So Jeb is worried about this guy voting for president, when his brother, also a convicted drunk driver and self-described alcoholic, is the president?

In earlier posts, I offered some quick analysis of racialized voting in the 2003 Lousiana gubernatorial race. A fuller analysis is available in an article I've coauthored: "Black, White, Brown, and Cajun: The Racial Dynamics of the 2003 Louisiana Gubernatorial Election"

To the people of Spain--nos afligimos con usted y no os olvidaremos.

In a speech on Friday, Tony Blair set out to defend the Iraq War and, more importantly, to put forward a new vision of the international community. In doing so, he rejects the principle, going back to the Treaty of Westphalia, that states are sovereign within their own borders. Instead, he argues that regimes that brutalize their own people forfeit such sovereign rights, not only for human rights reasons, but also because such regimes ultimately threaten the rest of the world. Here's the key point:

It may well be that under international law as presently constituted, a regime can systematically brutalise and oppress its people  and there is nothing anyone can do, when dialogue, diplomacy and even sanctions fail, unless it comes within the definition of a humanitarian catastrophe (though the 300,000 remains in mass graves already found in Iraq might be thought by some to be something of a catastrophe).  This may be the law, but should it be?

We know now, if we didn't before, that our own self interest is ultimately bound up with the fate of other nations.  The doctrine of international community is no longer a vision of idealism.  It is a practical recognition that just as within a country, citizens who are free, well educated and prosperous tend to be responsible, to feel solidarity with a society in which they have a stake; so do nations that are free, democratic and benefiting from economic progress, tend to be stable and solid partners in the advance of humankind.  The best defence of our security lies in the spread of our values. 

But we cannot advance these values except within a framework that recognises their universality.  If it is a global threat, it needs a global response, based on global rules.

The essence of a community is common rights and responsibilities.  We have obligations in relation to each other.  If we are threatened, we have a right to act. And we do not accept in a community that others have a right to oppress and brutalise their people.   We value the freedom and dignity of the human race and each individual in it.

I'll flatter myself by pointing out that I made a similar argument back in January, but Blair's speech is far more thorough and eloquent. Please read it.

The editors at the National Review have come out in favor of the following constitutional amendment on gay marriage being sponsored by Orrin Hatch:

"Civil marriage shall be defined in each state by the legislature or the citizens thereof. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to require that marriage or its benefits be extended to any union other than that of a man and a woman."

Am I wrong in thinking that such an amendment would overrule Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 Supreme Court case that overturned state bans on interracial marriage? The second sentence ("Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to require that marriage or its benefits be extended to any union other than that of a man and a woman.") is clearly intended to prevent courts from using the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to strike down gay marriage bans. But the first sentence ("Civil marriage shall be defined in each state by the legislature or the citizens thereof.") is much broader. Say, for example that the state legislature in Alabama decides to reimpose its ban on interracial marriage. Under this amendment, courts would have not constitutional basis for striking down such a ban since state legislatures are given unlimited power in this area.

I can think of two objections to this reasoning. Some would say that the second sentence, in addition to the first, shows that the authors of the amendment intended only to allow legislatures to bar gay marriage. But that seems a thin reed since, as conservatives have long pointed out, courts have a habit of reading things in or out of the Constitution.

Other would say that in this day and age, it's impossible that a state legislature or the people of a state would ban interracial marriage. Perhaps, but in 2000, Alabama held a statewide referendum to remove the ban on interracial marriage in their state constitution. This ban was, of course, null and void because of Loving but the referendum carried only by a margin of 60%-40% and 50% of white Alabamans still voted against the repeal (the data for this conclusion are forthcoming in a paper I'm writing). Given these figures, I'm not so sanguine about the impossibility of a state banning interracial marriage.

A wonderful Hitchens piece on the value of gay marriage:

When I become bored or irritated by the gay marriage battle--and I do, I sometimes do--I like to picture the writhing faces and hoarse yells of the mullahs and the fanatics. Godless hedonistic America, not content with allowing divorce and pornography, has taken from us our holy Taliban and our upright Saddam. It sends Jews and unveiled female soldiers to our lands, and soon unnatural brotherhood will be in the armed forces of the infidels. And now the godless have an election where all they discuss is the weddings of men to men and women to women! And then I relax, and smile, and ask my neighbors over, to repay the many drinks and kind gestures that I owe them.

Perhaps a bumper sticker is in order. Something like, "Gay Marriage: It's Our Patriotic Duty!"

Fascinating factoid from tonight's exit polls: among Democratic primary voters under the age of 30, 61% support gay marriage. The fight over the FMA is a race against time. Conservatives want to lock in their opposition to gay marriage before the demographic tide overwhelms them. Given that the FMA appears to be going nowhere in Congress, it looks like the Republicans have lost the race.