A Nevada ballot initiative to decriminalize possession of up to 3 ounces of marijuana for personal use was soundly defeated. According to ABC News, as of midnight, the results were:

No 272, 418 61%
Yes 173, 720 39%
% of precincts reporting: 83

We just left the Democratic headquarters an hour ago. Strickland was not there yet. The place was packed. We were glued to the tv and distressed by the Allard/Strickland numbers. We left before the race was called. Now home in front of the tv and computer, Fox just called the senate race for Allard. We're very sorry, we really think Strickland would make a far better Senator.

The only thing left to do now is begin the countdown to 2004. The Dems need to move back to the left and away from the moderate center. We need to stand for something, and for the past few years, there has been too little distinction between the democrats and republicans. Democrats weren't meant to be so centrist and mainstream, and unless they go back to their roots, we risk becoming a one party nation.

There's a part for us all to play here. Let's not nominate moderate democrats in 2004. Let's give the voting public a true choice. Let's go back to being leftists.

Eric Alterman on Altercation says it best:

"Still, I stand by what I've been saying. The Greens are the worst thing that has happened to the American Left since Communism. It's time for the idealistic people among them to wise up. After two years of far-right wing rule plus a pre-emptive war [opposed by Al Gore] brought to us courtesy of Nader and company, what do you need to convince you? An actual apocalypse?"

We couldn't agree more.

Update: 7:35 pm, results now

Allard (REP)* 49838 58%
Strickland (DEM) 33195 39%

But, the new precinct reporting is a rural conservative one (Joel Hefley's district) and is one which was expected to go for Allard.

The first results, listed below, were not from Denver, which we assume Strickland will win, but from a western/northern suburb, so that is good for Strickland.

Here are the first results in the Strickland Allard Race:

Strickland (DEM) 15485 55%
Allard (REP)* 12062 43%

Here is the link to page on the local news website which is counting the votes in the Strickland Allard race as they come in.

Here is the ABC News page counting the Colorado votes.

Thanks to Edward Still of VoteLaw for tipping us off to today's Washington Post article saying that Alabama is gaining the edge to be first for the sniper trial.

"While some sources with knowledge of the legal strategies being discussed said there is a strong push for the first case to be tried in the D.C. area, others noted that Alabama was becoming an increasingly attractive choice."

"The law enforcement sources said the Justice Department wants to ensure that the first case provides a clear prosecution victory -- both in verdict and punishment. They said the capital punishment laws in Alabama coupled with strong evidence in the Sept. 21 shooting outside a Montgomery liquor store are pushing that case up the list."

Translation: Ashcroft may pick Alabama for 2 reasons: It allows 17 year olds to be executed. It doesn't require the prosecution prove which person was the shooter to convict or get the death penalty. Not to mention they are big users of the death penalty.

But, will Ashcroft give up control to Alabama prosecutors and would such a decision be unpopular with the victim's survivors who may want to be able to follow the proceedings at close range and have input with the prosecutors? And will there be enough publicity for Ashcroft with a local prosecution in Alabama?

I still think Ascroft will pick Virginia where the feds can have a lot of input. Or that he'll take it federally first, charging killings during a Hobbes Act of extortion and use of a firearm to commit the crime. I also think he will leave the Virginia victims out of any federal Indictment as he did in the Complaint so that Virginia would be free to try them if the feds didn't get what they wanted.

Ashcroft really ought to get off the death penalty insistence for Malvo, the 17 year old. It is not going to go down well with the public outside the affected areas and will hurt us internationally.

Via Politics in the Zeros we've learned that sixty inmates at California's Pelican Bay Prison are on their third week of a hunger strike.

"Lawyers for the inmates say they are protesting the Department of Corrections' practice of isolating prisoners believed to be gang members in harsh segregation units, where they are denied most privileges and are rarely let out of their windowless cells."

"Under state regulations, male convicts determined to be gang members or associates may be sent to a security housing unit at Pelican Bay or at prisons in Corcoran and Tehachapi."

"Their term of isolation in the unit is indefinite, and the only routes out are to be released on, to inform on other gang members through an elaborate debriefing process or to demonstrate no evidence of gang activity for six years."

Some inmates have been wrongly identified as gang members. Once placed in the unit as a gang member, it is very difficult to get out. Attorneys complain that under current rules, the gang member doesn't have to engage in any illegal activity but can be punished for mere association with a gang member.

"They want the state to change its policy to require that only an inmate who engages in overt gang-related misconduct be labeled a member and punished with an indefinite term in a security housing unit."

"The way it is now, you don't actually have to do anything wrong ... you just have to associate with the wrong people," said Charles Carbone, a San Francisco attorney aiding the hunger strikers."

The conditions at Pelican Bay border on the intolerable, according to one federal judge.

"The 1,154 unit inmates spend about 23 hours a day in 8-by-10-foot cells, released only to exercise daily and to shower three times a week. Contact with other inmates and guards is almost nonexistent. The doors are opened by remote control and meals are pushed through slots in the wall."

For more on the conditions, read Visit to Pelican Bay State Torture Chamber.

In an unusual action, the Supreme Court summarily reversed three Ninth Circuit decisions on Monday. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is generally considered to be the most liberal appeals court in the country. Two of the decisions involved habeas corpus petitions in murder cases.

The article quotes Howard Bashman of How Appealing:

"Summary reversals are an extraordinary result in the U.S. Supreme Court, because they are usually reserved for cases in which the result below was unquestionably wrong," said Philadelphia appellate attorney Howard Bashman. "And three on one day, directed at the same federal appellate court, could be understood as sending a strong message of disapproval."

But Hastings College of the Law professor Rory Little, also an appellate lawyer, disagreed. "[The Supreme Court] knows how to write a strong rebuke," Little said. "It's not a strong rebuke."

"Significantly, two reversed the 9th Circuit in habeas corpus appeals from California state courts. In each case, the high court said the circuit decision "exceeds the limits imposed on federal habeas review." Judge Harry Pregerson, one of the 9th Circuit's most liberal jurists, was the principal author of each opinion."

For the record, we have a great deal of respect for Howard Bashman and read his blog almost daily. But we think Judge Pregerson is a fine jurist and agreed with his decisions.

Vikram Amar, a Hastings Law Professor "also said the 9th Circuit has nothing to hang its head about. "

University of Pittsburgh School of Law professor Arthur Hellman, who follows the 9th Circuit's record at the Supreme Court, acknowledged that three reversals are rare, but pointed out that the Court let another Ninth Circuit decision stand Monday--one in which the Circuit Court had ruled logging protesters could sue the Humboldt County Sheriff's Department for swabbing pepper spray in their eyes. We agree with that Ninth Circuit decision as well.

The three cases are: Early v. Packer, 02 C.D.O.S. 10897; Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Ventura, 02 C.D.O.S 10898; and Woodford v. Visciotti, 02 C.D.O.S. 10900.

Nelson Rockefeller's grandaughter was arrested while protesting the drug laws that bear her family's name.

Meile Rockefeller was arrested along with two state senators and eight other people outside Gov. Pataki's office.

"Prosecutors strongly support them, but a broad political consensus has formed that they have failed to work as intended — that they are too inflexible, too costly and too harsh when applied to low-level offenders who might do better with treatment and counseling than with long prison sentences. In Albany, political leaders have talked for years about change. But that's where it always ends, with talk."

The protest was sponsored by Correctional Association of New York, an organization that seeks repeal of the drug laws and uses the slogan "Drop the Rock."

Meile's brother Stuart Rockefeller was also at the protest but did not get arrested. Their uncle, Laurance Rockefeller, also opposes the drug laws. In a letter to the New York Times in June he wrote "Overly harsh laws and punishments have reduced faith in government, which is essential to the functioning of a democracy."

Meile, who has been a lawyer and a real estate developer, wants the drug laws repealed so that judges can "regain the power to decide whether a prison term or a treatment program works better for an offender and for society, because they "are the ones right there on the front lines."

Findlaw presents another free, valuable online resource for the U.S. Supreme Court Cases - November 2002 .

The page includes the issues for each case, the decisions of the lower courts and the briefs of each party. For those of you without access to Lexis or Westlaw, free legal research doesn't get much better than this.

Get out and vote today. Your vote can count only if you cast it. Don't let others decide your future, your children's future and our nation's future. You have an opinion, today is your chance to express it. If you don't think much of either candidate in a race, cast your vote against the one you think is the worst and help defeat that candidate.

For the best election video we've seen, check out Revolution from Blah3.com. Someone ought to hire this guy for 2004, now.

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune has endrosed Mondale for the Senate , calling him a great Minnesotan with Great Vision.

By this time tomorrow, except for possibly a few sqeakers, it will all be over. Then what? Taegan Goddard of Political Wire has a book out, entitled You Won - Now What?, that provides some relevant answers.

You Won, Now What?
How Americans Can Make Democracy Work from City Hall to the White House
by Taegan D. Goddard, Christopher Riback (Contributor)

Buy the Book Today!

From the Introduction:

"This book's premise is straightforward: to successfully take over government, public officials must first learn how to govern. Instead of reinventing government or turning to the latest management fad, new public officials must learn how to succeed in a world unlike any other. They must show voters that their election day choices really matter. They must follow through on their promises. For only through better governing will America get better government. "

Some reviews:

"Americans entrust their government to novices," Riback and Goddard remind us. "Every November they elect a bunch of people who have never done this before." You Won, Now What? offers practical tips on the task of governance, drawing upon real-life examples to illustrate how elected officials can do an effective job in their first--and in some ways most critical--days on the job. Their scope is broad--the authors consider state and local governments to be just as important as the federal government in maintaining quality of life for citizens--but the case studies keep the book from sliding into generalizations."

"In YOU WON - NOW WHAT?, Taegan D. Goddard and Christopher Riback argue convincingly that public disillusionment with government stems less from weariness with scandals and 'inside politics' than from elected officials' failure to deliver the results they promised. Many citizens, the authors correctly observe, 'have simply given up on a government which cannot solve today's urgent problems."

"Is government the problem or the solution? Both, say Goddard, who has held both federal and state appointed positions, and Riback, an investigative reporter. Novice elected and appointed officials bring valuable energy and new ideas to government agencies, but most of these folks don't know how to get things done in government, so they often can't keep campaign promises, and public cynicism rises. The authors hope to make the new-government-official transition easier by challenging cliches ("reinventing government," "run government like a business") and analyzing effective approaches."

(Available in hardcover and paperback)