I'll make government so small, it won't matter how incompetent I am.
#RejectedRandPaulSlogans

I'm not a bigot, but I support your right to be one.
#RejectedRandPaulSlogans

I've changed all my crazy positions to GOP boilerplate!
#RejectedRandPaulSlogans

Orange you glad I didn't say marijuana.
#RejectedRandPaulSlogans

Since they came to power in 2011, Walker and his party have not only changed the way the state is governed, but they have changed the political playing field. In a few big ways and lots of little ways, they have seemingly made it easier for Republicans and harder for Democrats to win elections. Whichever way the pendulum swings next year, the 2016 race will be contested under a different set of political rules than those of previous decades, rules adopted by one party over the ardent opposition of the other.

The most consequential of these changes involve redistricting, which has given the GOP a virtual lock on the Legislature, and Act 10, which disarmed a critical Democratic election ally, public employee unions. But the changes also involve an extensive rewrite of the state’s election rules.

...

Early Voting Curtailed. The window for early in-person voting used to be three weeks, and included the three weekends before Election Day. Now it runs just two weeks, with no weekend voting. Among other things, that ends Democratic “souls to the polls” Sunday voter drives in Milwaukee’s African-American churches. Democrats view the early voting curbs as an effort to suppress urban turnout.

...

Campaign finance. One final piece of the story is the loosening of rules for raising and spending money in state elections. This shift has been driven more by court decisions than by legislation. But Republicans plan to rewrite Wisconsin’s campaign finance law as a result of those court decisions. They’re expected to raise limits on individual contributions to candidates and liberalize rules for corporate spending.

If there’s a pattern to shifts in my uncertainty, though, it’s probably that I find myself drifting toward a more restrictive approach. In watching the politics of the Indiana law and its backlash, I think I’m getting a better sense of why that’s the case. What’s currently underway is what I’ll call the weaponization of religious exemptions. To explain what I mean by this, here are some classic examples of requests for religious exemptions: permission to use otherwise illegal substances for religious ceremonies, such as the Smith plaintiffs and Peyote, Catholics and sacramental wine during prohibition, Rastafari and marijuana);exemptions from zoning laws for the construction of Sukkahs and rules regarding the religious use of public property for the constructions of eruvs; exemption from mandatory military service, schooling requirements, or vaccinations; exemptions from incest laws (regarding Uncle/Niece marriages for some communities of Moroccan Jews); Native American religious groups seeking privileged access to sacred spaces on federally owned land;exemptions to Sunday closing laws for seventh-day Sabbatarians. I find some of these easy to support and others profoundly problematic, but they collectively share a common feature: they are fundamentally defensive in character. Their primary objective is to protect a practice or tradition or community, and little more. These exemptions are political but not in the sense that their exercise is directed toward the larger community in any concrete, meaningful sense. In these cases, the end sought in pursuing the exemption is, more or less, the exemption itself.

The requested accommodation in City of Boerne is a kind of transitional case. The exemption sought was to modify a church in a Historical District where such modifications were not permitted. While the exemption was clearly sought for the purpose of the exercise of religious activity, it wasn’t really a religious exemption per se—they wanted a bigger, more modern facility for more or less the general kind of reasons a private business or homeowner might have liked an exemption—accommodate more people, better amenities, etc. There was no connection between their status as a religious group and the nature of the particular exemption they were seeking; in essence they were arguing that the RFRA gives them license to avoid a law they found inconvenient. (Hypothetically, if a religious organization sought an exemption to historic zoning on grounds that their religion prohibited worshiping in buildings over a certain age for ceremonies, this case would have more merit.) Turning religious exemptions into a license for religious groups to evade general laws when inconvenient seems entirely deserving of pushback.

But this is only a partially weaponized use of religious exemptions; they’re being used as a weapon to advance the Church’s goals, but not striking against their political enemies. The quintessential case of a weaponized religious exemption is, of course, Hobby Lobby; Obamacare was to be the subject of a blitzkrieg, to be hit with any and every weapon imaginable, and that’s what the RFRA provided. Their efforts to make the claim appear credible could hardly be lazier or more half-assed. One possible check on weaponization, in a better and more decent society, could conceivably be a sense of embarrassment or shame; exposing one’s religious convictions as a cynical political tool to be wielded against one’s political enemies might be hoped to invoke enough embarrassment that it might be avoided, but we were well past that point. A remarkable document of this trend is this post from Patrick Deneen–fully, openly aware of the fundamental absurdity of Hobby Lobby’s case, cheering them on nonetheless. I mean, you’d think they’d at least have found a company owned by Catholics.

In light of that case, the transparent push for a super-RFRA deployable in private torts is not quite as egregious. It’s passing a bill that is by no means guaranteed to get them the results they want (my understanding is that no attempt to defend discriminatory behavior under any RFRA has yet been successful), and has plenty of other potential applications, some of which may be salutary. But the politics of it are undeniable; as in Kansas, Arizona and elsewhere, it’s plainly the case that this is simply the latest effort in the longstanding war on full social equality for gay and lesbian people. (If not having an RFRA at the books on the state level is such a grave threat to religious liberty, why haven’t we been hearing more about this since 1997, seeing as most states have no such law?) That this is a considerably less ambitious project in denying social equality than most previous battles fought in this war merely reflects the ground they’ve lost recently.

As the Chicago mayoral race rolls through its last week, young people from Chicago’s South and West side neighborhoods are rallying behind Rahm Emanuel’s challenger Jesus “Chuy” Garcia.

Far away from the city’s affluent neighborhoods, youth of color in Chicago see sides of this city that conflict with the “world class” image the mayor is so preoccupied with projecting. Gang violence, school crowding and closures, and unemployment disproportionally affect the youth. On Saturday, March 28 dozens of young voters gathered in front of the Chicago Board of Elections to early vote for Chuy Garcia. Some were voting for the very first time.

...

In many ways the issues dividing Chicago today are generational as well as racial. The older, white voters in the city are overwhelmingly concerned with the pension crisis. Garcia has been slammed for not providing concrete details about how he will handle the city’s precarious finances.

Many young people, however, must survive gang violence, and get through a school day with a seat in a classroom before they start thinking about retirement. For them, Garcia, who is endorsed by the Chicago Teachers Unions, SEIU, and other working class organizations, is a hopeful alternative to a mayor they feel has no interest in them.