morrison out

So it's official, Paul Morrison is out. It's been an amazing turnaround. About a week ago, Morrison was a highly-respected Attorney General, and a natural candidate for Governor or Lt. Governor at the end of Sebelius' term. Now, he's facing unemployment, an independent investigation launched by his arch-nemesis Phill Kline, and possible suspension or disbarment. While it was unavoidable, and probably the right decision, it's a big disappointment.

I still hope that he will be proved innocent of any professional wrongdoing. Even assuming that everything Linda Carter said is true, there is skimpy evidence that Morrison did much worse than violating staff regulations on office relationships. Now that the political damage is done, I hope that his political enemies don't try to destroy him.

Next, Sebelius will name his replacement, who will serve until 2010. There will not be a special election, as some Republican trolls have been suggesting on other blogs. The Kansas Constitution, Article I, Section 11, is clear on this issue:

When the office of secretary of state or attorney general is vacant, the governor shall fill the vacancy by appointment for the remainder of the term.

Stay Red Kansas has suggested that Sebelius might appoint Securities Commissioner Chris Biggs as Morrison's replacement. Biggs was the Geary County Attorney and a Democrat candidate for AG. Although he has lots of criminal law experience, there are some doubts about his political skills. Biggs was the man who lost to Phill Kline in the 2002 Attorney General race. However, in fairness to Biggs, 2002 was a year of major Republican gains everywhere. If Sebelius can't find any ready-for-prime-time replacements, Biggs might soon be the new face of Kansas law enforcement.

At the very least, Morrison's early exit will minimize the political fallout. All other state-level Democrats have emerged unscathed. It's also doubtful that many people will remember this once the presidential election season kicks in, much less in 2010. It might be cold comfort, but at least it's something.

why morrison made a smart move

Embattled Attorney General Paul Morrison has called for an independent investigation of the allegations against him by the Kansas Office of the Disciplinary Administrator. Morrison pledged to cooperate fully with the investigation. The move was smart politically, as it makes him look like someone with nothing to hide. But it was also smart legally. To understand why takes a bit of explanation, and a short detour into the thrilling world of disciplinary procedure.

In Kansas, when an ethics complaint is filed against a lawyer, it is referred to a Review Committee. The Review Committee reviews the charges and the evidence, and decides whether there is probable cause to continue--i.e., a reasonable belief that the lawyer committed some kind of misconduct.

If the complaint makes it out of the Review Committee, it is then scheduled for a hearing. The hearing is in front of a three person panel, and proceeds a lot like a normal civil case. Witnesses are called and evidence is introduced. After both sides have presented their case, the panel makes a decision, just like a jury in a normal case.

But here's the important part: the panel must find misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. "Clear and convincing" is considered less than "beyond a reasonable doubt," (the standard in a criminal case) but more than "the preponderance of the evidence." (the standard in a normal civil case).

In a normal civil case, like, say, a sexual harassment claim against a supervisor, the standard of proof is "the preponderance of the evidence," which basically means "more likely than not." This is the lowest standard of proof in the law. It means that you could theoretically win a case by showing that there is a 51% chance that what you're saying is true.

"Clear and convincing," on the other hand, is the highest standard of proof you can get in a civil case. Like many legal terms its exact meaning is hard to pin down, but most definitions involve some variation of "highly likely" or "highly probable." In numeric terms, think a 75% chance that something is true.

Now here's the rub: the original sexual harassment investigation against Morrison is subject to the "preponderance of the evidence" standard.

Right now, the claim is being handled by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency that investigates discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC will investigate the charges, and determine if they are supported by the preponderance of the evidence. If the EEOC finds that they are, they have two options: (1) prosecute the case against Morrison themselves in civil court, or (2) decline to prosecute, in which case Linda Carter can file a private civil case against Morrison. Whether the EEOC or Carter prosecutes the case, they will have to prove that Morrison sexually harassed Carter by the preponderance of the evidence.

The bottom line is that it will be much harder to prove that Paul Morrison harassed Linda Carter in a hearing before the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator. Much of the case is going to come down to Linda Carter's testimony, pitting her word against Morrison's. But it is highly unlikely that her testimony alone can establish sexual harassment, or other misconduct, by "clear and convincing" evidence. Unless she was recording telephone conversations or has some other smoking gun, Morrison stands a very good shot at being vindicated.

Another added benefit of the disciplinary hearing is that it will force Carter's legal team to tip their hands early. They will have to come forward with all of the evidence of sexual harassment that they will be using later to sue Morrison. This will give Morrison a definite advantage in preparing for any future trials, and in finding evidence to dispute her allegations.

The Disciplinary Administrator investigation will likely be completed long before the EEOC's. If Morrison is found innocent, he will have lots of political cover, and he will be in a good position even if the EEOC finds evidence of sexual harassment. Morrison is going to stand and fight, and he may yet live to see another day.

if morrison goes, who's next?

Although Paul Morrison's future remains uncertain, conventional wisdom says that he won't run for re-election in 2010, even if he does manage to avoid resignation or removal. Dianne Silver points out that there is already some grumbling among Democrats that Morrison should resign, so that Sebelius can appoint a Democrat successor. There aren't many Democrats who are well-known or popular at the state-wide level, the reasoning goes, so it is imperative that the party put this scandal to rest so that it can hold onto the Attorney General seat.

This all begs the question: who could succeed Morrison if he doesn't fill out his term?

The most natural pool of candidates to fill the seat are Democrat district attorneys, particularly from large districts. Here are a few who are likely to be on the Governor's short list.

(1) Topping the list is Nola Tedesco Foulston, the Sedgwick County District Attorney. Foulston has an extremely impressive resume, with years of law enforcement experience and a laundry list of awards and honors. She has served as Sedgwick county DA for nearly 20 years, and ran unopposed in 1996, 2000, and 2004. She also has a compelling personal story, as she has continued as DA despite being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998. Predictably, the Operation Rescue crowd despises her for her refusal to file frivolous charges against abortion provider George Tiller. But it's hard to imagine any Democrat that wouldn't generate opposition among pro-lifers.

In raw political terms, Foulston would be the perfect antidote to Morrison's scandal. Appointing a woman who is, by all accounts, above reproach, would draw a stark contrast to Morrison's piggish behavior. Also, the fact that she is a woman and suffers from a debilitating disease would make her much harder to attack. State Republicans would probably avoid getting too nasty and personal, for fear that the attacks could backfire.

The big question is whether Foulston is interested in running for higher office. Topeka is a long way from Wichita, and she may decide that her health, her family and her career as a prosecutor are more important than climbing the political ladder.

(2) Jerome Gorman of Wyandotte County or Charles Branson of Douglas County. Both of these Democrat DAs are serving their first terms, and both have rather low profiles. Gorman appears to have some prosecutorial experience, but doesn't have too many accomplishments or honors.
He also ran unopposed in Wyandotte, which surely raises questions about his ability to win a competitive race.

Branson, on the other hand, was a criminal defense attorney for years before he was elected as DA. Republicans would definitely try to skewer him for helping to keep criminals on the street. However, Branson did decisively win a competitive election as a Democrat in 2004, when the party was getting shellaced across the state.

But the bottom line is that both Gorman and Branson won as Democrats in the only Democratic strongholds in the state. Douglas and Wyandotte were the only counties that went for Kerry in 2004, when both Gorman and Branson were elected. This raises some doubt about their ability to appeal to Republicans, which would be a necessity for any candidate for state-wide office.

(3) Convince another Republican to switch parties. While this may seem unlikely on its face, it should be remembered that nobody would have thought Paul Morrison or Mark Parkinson would have "D"s in front of their names a few years ago. In my opinion, the best "get" would be Shawnee County District Attorney Robert Hecht. The man is extremely well-respected, and has decades of experience and a mightily impressive resume.

Although he is a Republican, there are some indications that Hecht isn't an unflaggingly loyal company man. For one, he is a member of a few Democratic-leaning organizations, including the Kansas Trial Lawyers and the NAACP. He also essentially threw Phill Kline under the bus in the KCTV-5 piece about Kline's less-than-impressive work ethic. Although that may not have been his intention, the very fact that he spoke to KCTV-5, on camera, in its investigation of Kline shows less than perfect party loyalty--a hardcore Republican would have stonewalled.

Hecht, or any Republican, may be attracted to the replacement position because it would allow them to bypass what is sure to be a contested Republican primary. An experienced former Republican would be a heavy favorite to hold on to the Attorney General seat in 2010. Instead of having to go through the painstaking work of raising money and building a campaign organization, somebody like Hecht could ascend to higher office with minimal effort.

Although the Kansas Democratic party doesn't have a very deep bench for upcoming elections, all is not lost. If Sebelius and Morrison play this right, state Dems could wind up with an even better candidate for 2010, or, at the very least, one who has a fighting chance.

say it ain't so paul

The Kansas City Star reported that Paul Morrison could be in for some serious scandal:

TOPEKA | News of a sexual harassment complaint against Attorney General Paul Morrison touched off a firestorm in Kansas political circles Sunday, ranging from cautious support to calls for impeachment.

Morrison acknowledged having an affair with a former employee in the Johnson County district attorney’s office, but he denied harassing her.

Morrison also denied her allegations that he tried to use the relationship to obtain sensitive information about an abortion investigation by his successor, Phill Kline. Morrison said he never tried to influence ongoing cases.

It's very disappointing, on a personal level, to see an elected official cheat on his wife. But infidelity alone shouldn't disqualify Morrison from office, at least to the extent that it doesn't interfere with his public duties.

However, there are two serious allegations of professional misconduct being leveled against Morrison, that, if true, should disqualify him from running the state's law enforcement agency.

The most potentially explosive is sexual harassment. The Star article stated that a complaint was filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (or "EEOC"). The EEOC website lists the following as examples of sexual harassment:

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual's employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual's work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.

Sexual harassment can occur in a variety of circumstances, including but not limited to the following:

• The victim as well as the harasser may be a woman or a man. The victim does not have to be of the opposite sex.
• The harasser can be the victim's supervisor, an agent of the employer, a supervisor in another area, a co-worker, or a non-employee.
• The victim does not have to be the person harassed but could be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.
• Unlawful sexual harassment may occur without economic injury to or discharge of the victim.
• The harasser's conduct must be unwelcome.

Morrison's defense seems to rest on the last bullet point. He admits that there was a sexual relationship, but he is arguing that it was entirely consensual, and therefore any sexual advances or conduct were "welcome." Whether or not the affair was consensual is a question of fact that the EEOC will try to determine. Although at this point, without seeing the complaint against Morrison, it appears that the allegations boil down to "he said/she said," which is likely not enough, by itself, to win a sexual harassment claim. In addition, the Topeka Capital Journal article about the allegations reveals no allegations of sexual harassment while Morrison was Linda Carter's boss.

Morrison is no shrinking violet, and it's unlikely that he's going to resign without a fight. At this point, without any "smoking guns," impeachment looks like a remote possibility. Still, even if he is innocent of sexual harassment and professional wrongdoing, his political future does not look good. Marital infidelity does not play well in a conservative-leaning state like Kansas, and it is a certainty that any future Republican opponents will raise the issue. It is unfortunate that Kansas Democrats have likely lost one of their best hopes for holding onto the governor's mansion after Sebelius leaves office.

how phill kline broke the law... again

Due to some excellent investigative work by KCTV 5, it has come to light that unelected Johnson County District Attorney Phill Kline does not actually reside in Johnson County. Although Kline isn't running for re-election (probably because he would get trounced and hand the seat to Democrat), this could mean that Johnson County is Kline-free well before the 2008 election.

The KCTV 5 piece briefly mentioned that Kansas state law requires a district attorney to live in the county that he serves. The specific law is KSA 22a-103(d), which states:

(d) In the event that any district attorney changes residence outside of the judicial district from which elected, such district attorney shall promptly resign from such office as district attorney. If such district attorney fails to resign, such district attorney shall be subject to removal from office as provided by law.

Johnson County is located in the 10th judicial district. Shawnee County, which includes Topeka, is within the state's 3rd judicial district. Although the statute uses the term "elected," this clearly encompasses Kline's "election" by Republican precinct captains.

Because Kline is a lawyer and elected official, it is also likely that, by claiming to reside in a place that he doesn't, he has broken several ethics codes. For starters, there is the Johnson County Code of Ethics (in .pdf format). The Code outlines the standards for all Johnson County employees and elected officials, including:

STANDARD 201: UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE STATE OF KANSAS, AND JOHNSON COUNTY AND NEVER BE A PARTY TO THEIR EVASION

STANDARD 901: AT ALL TIMES DISPLAY THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF INTEGRITY IN PERFORMING HIS OR HER DUTIES AND NEVER KNOWINGLY NOR NEGLIGENTLY MISLEAD OR ALLOW OTHERS TO MISLEAD THE PUBLIC OR OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, NOR FAIL TO DISCLOSE OR REPORT TO APPROPRIATE OFFICIALS ANY CORRUPTION WHEREVER DISCOVERED.

It is also likely that there are several violations of the Kansas Code of Professional Responsibility, the code governing all Kansas lawyers. Although it is hard to say which codes were violated without seeing the paperwork Kline had to file to become District Attorney, it is highly likely that he signed many documents claiming his bogus Johnson County address. From the KCTV story, it is apparent that Kline claimed to reside in Johnson County on both his motor vehicle and voter registration. The Kansas Office of the Disciplinary Administrator tends to take a rather dim view of lawyers who make knowingly false statements in official documents.

The bottom line is that Kline misled an awful lot of people. The idea that Kline, someone who went from corporate lawyer to politician, would live in a crappy apartment out in the sticks, is dubious to say the least. Even if he did need to live in a $400/month apartment when he makes nearly $150,000 a year, there are countless cheap apartments located within a few miles of the Johnson County courthouse. The fact that his alleged residence is not only far away from his job, but in a highly isolated area, makes it even more likely that his Johnson County residence is a sham.

Although this is not a criminal offense, it is still a blatant violation of the law by Johnson County's top law enforcement officer. Johnson County residents should not have to take one more minute of Kline's sleazy behavior. Here is how we can show him the door early:

1) If you live in Johnson County, contact your county commissioner, and let him know that Kline has to go. A little political pressure could go a long way.

2) File a complaint with the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator. You don't have to be a lawyer to file, and the form is available right here. If Kline gets called before a disciplinary committee, he'll be in a very tough position--either continue to dissemble about his true residence (lying to the ethics committee is a serious ethical offense in and of itself), or come clean and admit that he's not legally qualified to be Johnson County's district attorney.

There is also a procedure in Johnson County where an ethics complaint can be filed against an elected official, although it is not clear whether citizens can file the complaints. I will post more as soon as I can get ahold of someone in the office.

UPDATE:
A conscientious reader has obtained information about how to file an ethics complaint. In Johnson County, the complaint is to be filed with the supervisor--which, in this case, is either Kline himself or the Attorney General (although it is not clear whether the Attorney General has any responsibility to enforce county ethics codes). The Johnson County Code does say that Kline would have to recuse himself from any ethics investigation.
You can send an ethics complaint to the District Attorney's office via email at this email address.
Contact info for the Attorney General's office is here.

Kline is not likely to go easily. From the minute he started as Johnson County DA, he has conducted himself as someone with nothing to lose--an inevitable result of the fact that he knows he will never face voter accountability for his actions. But if enough people make enough racket, we can send him packing.

turnout key in ks-02

Congresswoman-elect Nancy Boyda did better than everybody expected on Tuesday. So how did she do it? To help find out, I have complied a county-by-county list of vote totals for 2004 and 2006 (available in Excel format here)

So what does all this mean?

First, Boyda's turnout was unusually strong. Midterm elections always have lower turnout than Presidential years, and far fewer total votes were cast this year in the Second district than in '04. But Boyda's 2006 numbers are almost all (with the exception of Riley county) within a few hundred votes of her 2004 totals. In Jackson, Jefferson, Nemaha, Osage and Pottawatomie counties she even slightly exceeds her 2004 totals. In contrast, Ryun didn't beat his 2004 totals in a single county.

Second, Ryun had much lower turnout than in 2004, and it was devestating. In almost every county he recieved at least 1,000 fewer votes than '04. The problem was the worst in the most populous areas. In Shawnee county (which includes Topeka) alone he recieved over 13,000 less votes than 2004. Douglas, Riley and Leavenworth counties delivered around 15,000 less Ryun votes. This meant that even in counties Ryun carried, his margin over Boyda was much thinner. In Leavenworth this turnaround was particularly dramatic--he recieved about 5,000 more votes than Boyda in '04, but only around 125 more votes than Boyda in '06. His core support simply evaporated.

So where did Boyda's votes come from? Were Boyda's totals the result of 2004 Ryun voters switching sides, or did Boyda '04 voters show up while Ryun '04 voters stayed home?
The most likely explanation is that Boyda's 2004 supporters were energized and Ryun's weren't. While we won't know for sure until all the election results are certified, it looks like Democratic turnout was strong nationwide. Pre-election polling data indicated a large enthusiasm gap favoring Democrats. From my own experiences, I think Charlie Cook nailed this year's mood among Democrats when said they were "spitting nails and can't wait to vote." The lack of a viable Republican challenge to Sebelius probably also helped to depress Republican turnout. It's hard to motivate voters to get to the polls for someone who has no chance of winning.

From these numbers, it's clear that talk of a realignment in Kansas politics is premature. If enough Republican voters had turned out on Tuesday--if Ryun had been able to get within a few hundred votes of his 2004 totals--Boyda would have lost big. 2006 was an extraordinary election year, and it's unlikely that she will face the same combination of energized Democrats and dispirited Republicans in the near future. If Boyda wants to be more than a one-term representative, it's imperative that she starts to pick off Republican moderates. The powers of incumbency can do wonders for a Democrat in a Republican-leaning district (just look at Dennis Moore's ever-increasing vote percentages in Johnson County) and she better start using them quickly. The Republicans will be back in 2008, and they might be the ones spitting nails.

boyda's win: the narrative

Without a doubt, Nancy Boyda's victory over long time incumbent Jim Ryun was one of the major upsets of this election cycle. Within a few months the seat went from "Safe Republican" to a Democrat pickup. With much national media attention already focused on Kansas's Democratic resurgence, the question remains: what will become the story of Boyda's victory? Several explanations are possible:

1) Anti-Bush fervor struck everywhere. This is the explanation throughly covered by Diane Silver in her excellent recent post. The basic theory is that Bush was an albatross around the neck of every Republican incumbent in the country, and his toxic unpopularity handed the seat to Boyda. There is no doubt that anti-Republican and anti-Bush sentiment were a part of Boyda's victory. But it's difficult to determine how much Bush factored in. Like most House races, there wasn't an exit poll to guage the effect of Presidential disapproval on voters. The last 50 state SurveyUSA poll on Bush's popularity was taken back in October. It showed Bush's approval at 41% approval statewide. His strongest disapproval number, 63% came from an ill-defined "Eastern" portion of the state, which undoubtedly included most of the Second district. Bottom line: there is definitely evidence to suggest Bush had a hand in sinking Ryun.

2) Gerrymandering bit the Republicans in the ass. Silver touches on this explanation as well. The story goes something like this: by cutting Lawrence in half during the 2002 redistricting, the Republicans dumped a bunch of Democratic votes into the Second district. Lawrence, the state's liberal stronghold, is split between the Second and Third congressional districts. The split runs right down Iowa street, placing the K.U. campus and most of the student ghetto in the Third district, and the western half of the city in the Second (the western half has a lower student population).

The best way to test this theory is to look at the numbers. Based on the Lawrence Journal-World's very cool interactive map, Boyda won huge in Lawrence. Generally, the closer one gets to Iowa street, the bigger the margin. She also seems to have carried every single precinct in Douglas county (where Lawrence resides). According to the 2004 results in Douglas county (link is in Microsoft excel format), Boyda recieved 10,063 votes to Ryun's 10,333. This year, according the Secretary of State's unofficial results, she recieved 9,379 votes to Ryun's 5,850. At least in Douglas county, the results are pretty unmistakable: Democrats were energized and Republicans stayed home. The problem for Ryun wasn't his district, it was Republican turnout. Boyda's lopsided victory in populous Shawnee county (which Ryun carried handily in 2004) appears to have also been decisive.

3) Ryun ran a horrible campaign / Boyda ran a great campaign. Almost all of the evidence for either theory has been anecdotal. There was some grumbling among Kansas Republicans that Ryun had done a poor job with constituent service, and that he failed to take Boyda seriously until it was too late. The latter assertion does have some merit: according to the odious (and hilariously ineffective) blog Fire Kansas Democrats, Ryun's first campaign ad didn't air until late September. Had team Ryun been more on the ball, they could have aggressively defined Boyda and buried her early on.
As for the Boyda campaign: After Ryun's decisive victory in 2004, there was some doubt over her appeal as a candidate and (as someone who has never held elected office) her political instincts. But there's no doubt Nancy Boyda and her husband/campaign manager Steve Boyda made some great moves this time around. Using their extremely limited resources to commission internal polls, and then releasing those polls to the public was clearly beneficial. It generated media attention, helped drive Democratic turnout and, at the crucial late stages of the campaign, convinced the DCCC to dump money into the race. Boyda's unsuccessful 2004 run also helped pave the way for victory--she started with much higher name I.D. than a virtual unknown. Finally, team Boyda utilized the "change" message which seems to have worked wonders for Democrats across the country.

4) Boyda had help at the top of the ticket. The lopsided victories of Governor Kathleen Sebelius and new Attorney General Paul Morrison may have had coattails. Conventional wisdom says a voter who checks the box for a Democrat once is probably more likely to do it twice. Undoubtedly, popular state-level Democrats make it harder to caricature the party. Ryun's claims that all Democrats want to raise your taxes were contradicted by actual experience with Democrats who didn't. On this point, the numbers are a wash. Sebelius and Morrison both ran well ahead of Boyda everywhere, suggesting that some Sebelius supporters still voted for Ryun. But a popular incumbent Governor certainly didn't hurt.

These narratives not mutually exclusive, and it's likely all contributed to Boyda's upset. It's likely the national media will pick up on the first explanation, because it's the easiest, it ties into national issues, and allows the pundits to save face for writing off the race far too early. Judging by the media attention generated by the state's moderate Republican defections, there's little doubt that a flood of "What's (not) The Matter With Kansas" articles are on the horizon.

kansas turns purple

After a heated campaign season, Kansas has split both its statewide offices and U.S. Congressional seats right down the middle. Nancy Boyda unseated Jim Ryun in the 2nd district, and Dennis Moore crushed the wormy Chuck Ahner. Sebelius, as widely expected, held onto the governor's office, and Paul Morrison annihilated Phill Kline.

With the dust still settling, a few things are apparent:

1) Negative campaigning failed. Kline's entire campaign was dedicated to slinging mud and distorting the record of Paul Morrison. The more he did it, the more he slipped in the polls. Similarly, Jim Ryun's attempts to paint Boyda as a scary tax-raisin' librul didn't hold water. Voters aren't quite as stupid as people think.

2) The religious right has been slapped down. In such a heavily Republican state, there was a time the Operation Rescue crowd was a force to be reckoned with. That no longer appears to be the case, as moderate Republicans have shown they'll support moderate Democrats over right-wing Republicans. Kline's constant pandering to extreme pro-lifers alienated enough middle-of-the-road voters to cost him his seat. Morrison's huge margin once again shows that the religious right is a (very vocal) minority.

3) Kansas has once again shown that it isn't crazy. After years of being the butt of every political joke, Kansans have shown that we aren't idiots who support Republicans no matter what. We aren't religious fanatics who place abortion and gay marriage above all other pressing issues. We aren't luddites who want to pretend evolution didn't happen. We're sensible, moderate folks who want effective government instead of divise partisanship.

Congratulations to Congresswoman Boyda and Attorney General Morrison. May they do us proud.

kline goes down in flames

According the Lawrence Journal World, with over half of precincts reporting, Morrison is up 59% to 41%. It's hard to see Kline coming back from this one.

UPDATE: It's over! The Kansas City Star calls the race for Paul Morrison, 58% to Kline's measely 41%. Let us bask in the blinding dome of our new Attorney General

UPDATE II: The Lawrence Journal-World calls the race for Morrison.

boyda leading in early results!

According the latest results, with 57% reporting, the race currently stands at:

Boyda (D): 54%, 72,573 votes
Ryun (R): 45%, 62,425 votes

It ain't over yet, but if I was Ryun I'd be sweating bullets...

UPDATE (10:35pm): Boyda's lead is holding with 72% of precincts in according to LJ-World. Ryun needs to make up almost 12,000 votes in order to win.

shocking news: brownback against gay marriage

According to Hotline, the first national politician to speak out against today's ruling in New Jersey mandating civil unions was our own Sam Brownback:

"The decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court only deepens the constitutional crisis with respect to the protection of traditional marriage, and warrants swift, decisive action by Congress in the form of passage of the Marriage Protection Amendment. Huge social changes should be decided by the people and their elected representatives and should not be forced by the courts.”

Yes, Sam, "huge social changes." Kind of like the one that started in Kansas in 1954? You know, Brown v. Board of Education?
Brownback's logic (the logic of many right wing opponents of gay marriage) would apply with equal force to Brown: it mandated a huge social change in a most undemocratic fashion. At the time it was decided, the country was most certainly not ready for desegregated schools (or the more sweeping desegregation that followed). The people had spoken through their elected representatives, in Kansas and elsewhere, and shown their support (or at least toleration) of segregation.
But the New Jersey decision, like Brown, demonstrates exactly what the courts are supposed to do in these situations: protect the rights of minorities who can't protect themselves through the political process (what with the majoritarian politics and all). In the 50s and 60s, those damn activist judges dragged the country kicking and screaming toward greater equality. Despite dire warnings from Brownback's ideological predecessors, we emerged with our democracy intact, and with greater respect for human rights to boot. Today, the courts, precisely because of their insulation from democratic politics, are the only people in power willing to state the obvious: there is no reason to deny civil unions other than irrational prejudice towards gay and lesbian people.
In the long run, the Brownbacks of the world never win--each generation gets a little more tolerant than the last (try asking a room full of today's high school students how much they worry about preserving the sanctity of traditional marriage). Despite the gay marriage amendments and the shrieking indignation of the religious right, acceptance of gay people and culture has never been higher.
History will judge Sam Brownback harshly, just as it judged men like George Wallace and Bull Conner: demagogues who stood in the way of much-needed progress.