On the menu today: A bipartisan group of senators seems to have agreed on an initial framework for new gun-control legislation, Sarah Palin passes the first major hurdle in her race for Congress, and the Wall Street Journal offers some insight into how we should understand abortion polling.
They Have a Deal . . . Maybe
Major outlets reported on Sunday that a bipartisan group of 20 senators — ten Democrats and ten Republicans — has reached a deal in negotiations over a new piece of gun-control legislation. The bill deals with issues such as background checks and gun trafficking. It also increases funding for safety measures in schools and for infrastructure to assist individuals who struggle with mental-health issues.
The proposal also would include funding as an incentive for states to enact “red-flag laws,” which permit law-enforcement agents to confiscate weapons from individuals who have been deemed dangerous.
This news comes on the heels of action in the House on gun control. Last week, a slim majority in the House passed legislation that would raise the minimum age required to buy a semi-automatic rifle from 18 to 21. Ten Republicans voted with Democrats in favor of the bill. The Senate proposal differs from the House measure, requiring that gun buyers under 21 pass an “enhanced” background check rather than banning them from purchasing altogether.
Democrats are pitching themselves as grand bargainers and the Senate proposal as a modest compromise, reminding observers that, if they had their druthers, they’d be enacting gun-control policies that are far more wide-ranging, such as a complete ban on AR-15s. Here’s more from the New York Times:
“We cannot let the congressional perfect be the enemy of the good,” said Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, who said he would have preferred to bar military assault weapons. “Though this agreement falls short in this and other respects, it can and will make our nation safer.”
In interviews over the past two weeks, multiple Senate Democrats made it clear they were ready to embrace almost anything the bipartisan talks could produce, rather than engage in another fruitless standoff on the Senate floor and ending up with nothing. . . .
“While more is needed, this package will take steps to save lives,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Sunday in a statement, indicating she will back it even though the House last week passed much more sweeping measures.
One of the most controversial pieces of the proposed framework is what Democrats refer to as closing the “boyfriend loophole.” Current law makes it more difficult for individuals to obtain a gun after having been accused of domestic violence, but Democrats aim to add dating partners to the prohibition, which currently applies only to spouses.
The group of Republican senators backing the framework is led by John Cornyn of Texas and includes Roy Blunt of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Rob Portman of Ohio, Mitt Romney of Utah, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. Worth noting: Four of them are retiring after their current term, and not one of them is facing reelection this year.
As for the bill’s future, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) has already promised to bring it to the floor as soon as the legislation is written. For his part, Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) has praised the negotiators for reaching an agreement but has not said whether he’ll support whatever bill they end up drafting.
According to reporting from the Wall Street Journal, most of the specifics remain undecided
Hurdles remain on converting the framework into a detailed proposal, including how much to spend on the programs, how they would be paid for, and how the money would be distributed. There are no specifics, for example, on what type of law a state must pass to receive a grant relating to implementing extreme protection orders, commonly called red-flag laws, which allow for guns to be removed from a person who is deemed unsafe.
In other words, there’s plenty of time for this early agreement to fall apart once the group has to get down to brass tacks.
Sarah Palin Continues Her Trek to Congress
Former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin has appeared on a ballot for the first time since 2008, and she performed quite well. Palin is running in a special election to fill the Alaska House seat vacated by the death of Representative Don Young, who had represented the at-large congressional district for 49 years at the time he passed away, making him the GOP’s longest-serving member of Congress.
This is the first race in which Alaska is implementing a new system that the state’s voters approved in 2020, replacing standard party primaries with ranked-choice voting. Under the new structure, the top four vote-getters in the primary advance to a general election.
Dozens of candidates — including Santa Claus! — were vying with Palin for the slot in Saturday’s primary, but Palin seems to have taken a fairly substantial lead, according to the first round of returns. While the results aren’t yet official, at last count, she had received almost 30 percent of the vote, followed by Nick Begich III, who had the support of about 19 percent of voters, and Al Gross, who was hovering around 10 percent.
Politico reports that state elections officials will perform additional ballot counts this coming week, followed by a final count on June 21. They aim to have certified the results by June 25, and the general election will take place on August 16. The winner will serve the remainder of Young’s term, which extends only until January. The Intelligencer has more on how exactly the timing breaks down and on the top few candidates:
Because of the short time frame of the special primary, Alaska conducted it by mail with all registered voters receiving a ballot and a postage-paid return envelope. Saturday, June 11 was the deadline for getting a ballot postmarked, though they count if they are received before June 21. As of June 11, about 140,000 ballots had been received, and with 108,000 counted, Palin has 30 percent of the vote in the nonpartisan contest. Running a clear second at 19 percent was Nick Begich III, the conservative Republican grandson and namesake of the Democrat who held the House seat before Young was elected in 1973. Begich was actually running against Young (to his right) when the venerable congressman died in March. Another reasonably clear winner of a top-four spot was orthopedic surgeon Al Gross, the Democratic Senate nominee in 2020, now running as an independent; Gross currently has 12 percent of the vote.
The race has exposed interesting divisions in Alaska politics. Though he trailed Palin in votes this past weekend, Begich secured the endorsement of the state Republican Party. Palin denounced the move: “This predictable action of the Party establishment proves that the old boys’ network is alive and well in Alaska.” Shortly after announcing her plan to run, Palin nabbed the endorsement of President Donald Trump, who beat Joe Biden in Alaska by about ten points in 2020.
What to Make of Abortion Polling
I’ve written quite a bit about how misleading public-opinion polling on abortion can be. Many surveys ask respondents unclear or unspecific questions — such as, “Do you support abortion in all or most cases?” a far less clarifying question than, for instance, “Do you support laws banning abortion after the first trimester of pregnancy?”
These deficiencies have become far more apparent and far more frustrating as we wait on a decision from the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Observers want to know how much, if at all, the outcome will affect voter decisions in this fall’s midterms, and Democrats are resting on a naively hopeful theory that the end of Roe might buoy their electoral chances.
But while public sentiment might be hard to get a handle on, it’s not impossible to get the basic picture if you dig into as many surveys as you can find: Americans generally think they like Roe v. Wade, but they also generally prefer protections for unborn children that aren’t permitted under Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. A recent editorial from the Wall Street Journal did a great job highlighting the key takeaways from public-opinion surveys:
The conventional wisdom on abortion polling is that the Supreme Court is walking into a gale-force political wind if it overturns Roe v. Wade. Gallup reported last week that 55% of Americans identify as pro-choice, up six points since 2021 and near a record high. The Journal’s poll last week says 68% of people hope the Supreme Court doesn’t completely overturn Roe.
Movement in such topline figures is meaningful, but it obscures as much as it reveals. What do people mean when they identify as pro-choice? In the Gallup survey, 67% of Americans say abortion should be “generally legal” in the first three months of pregnancy. But it falls precipitously to 36% in the second trimester and 20% in the final trimester.
Recall what the Supreme Court is deciding in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Mississippi law under review generally bans abortion after 15 weeks. That’s the second trimester. According to Gallup, that has public opinion on its side. “A majority of Americans (55%) are generally against abortion in the second three months,” the pollster says. This is the same percentage who called themselves pro-choice.
In other words, there are many pro-choice Americans who nonetheless oppose abortion in the second and third trimesters, and this isn’t necessarily inconsistent. One study of 2019 abortions in the U.S. says that 79% were performed at nine weeks or less of pregnancy, and 93% at 13 weeks or less.
In other words, calling oneself “pro-choice” or voicing support for Roe does not mean that voters oppose protections for unborn children, much less that they’ll be storming to the polls to vote for Democrats in November, enraged over a Court decision overturning Roe.
ADDENDUM: This café in Tokyo helps you overcome writer’s block by charging you a fine if you fail to meet your daily word-count goal before you leave for the day. The café seats ten people, and it costs about $2 an hour to work in one of those seats. You can also pay $4.50 an hour if you’d prefer a premium seat facing a brick wall, which I sure would. “Maybe it’s the atmosphere, maybe because I’m paying, but I sit down and immediately start typing,” one customer said. Anyone want to help me bring the idea to Northern Virginia?