Union Membership in 2018

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

The union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who were members of unions--was 10.5 percent in 2018, down by 0.2 percentage point from 2017, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The number of wage and salary workers belonging to unions, at 14.7 million in 2018, was little changed from 2017. In 1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent and there were 17.7 million union workers. 

...

Highlights from the 2018 data: --The union membership rate of public-sector workers (33.9 percent) continued to be more than five times higher than that of private-sector workers (6.4 percent). (See table 3.) 

--The highest unionization rates were among workers in protective service occupations (33.9 percent) and in education, training, and library occupations (33.8 percent). (See table 3.) --Men continued to have a higher union membership rate (11.1 percent) than women (9.9 percent). (See table 1.)

--Black workers remained more likely to be union members than White, Asian, or Hispanic workers. (See table 1.)

--Nonunion workers had median weekly earnings that were 82 percent of earnings for workers who were union members ($860 versus $1,051). (The comparisons of earnings in this release are on a broad level and do not control for many factors that can be important in explaining earnings differences.) (See table 2.)

--Among states, Hawaii and New York had the highest union membership rates (23.1 percent and 22.3 percent, respectively), while North Carolina and South Carolina had the lowest (2.7 percent each). (See table 5.) 

Constitutional Hardball

In 2004, Mark Tushnet wrote an important article titled "Constitutional Hardball."

For the past several years I have been noticing a phenomenon that seems to me new in my lifetime as a scholar of constitutional law. I call the phenomenon constitutional hardball. This Essay develops the idea that there is such a practice, that there is a sense in which it is new, and that its emergence (or re-emergence) is interesting because it signals that political actors understand that they are in a position to put in place a new set of deep institutional arrangements of a sort I call a constitutional order. A shorthand sketch of constitutional hardball is this: it consists of political claims and practices-legislative and executive initiatives-that are without much question within the bounds of existing constitutional doctrine and practice but that are nonetheless in some tension with existing pre-constitutional understandings.  It is hardball because its practitioners see themselves as playing for keeps in a special kind of way; they believe the stakes of the political controversy their actions provoke are quite high, and that their defeat and their opponents' victory would be a serious, perhaps permanent setback to the political positions they hold. 

Matt Glassman writes:

But the way hardball took over in regard to the Senate rules should give us some pause about its application at the Constitutional level. One of the key lessons of watching the Senate escalate the war over the filibuster is that the hardball tactics, once employed, are hard to stop and really hard to reverse. Taking those tactics out of the Senate and using them to fundamentally alter another branch of the government seems patently dangerous, in the existential sense, for the separation of powers system. Would the Supreme Court even exist in any independent sense if unified majorities simply recreated a Court they preferred?

On a more grand scale, court-packing is one of the key moves of autocrats throughout the world, most recently in Honduras, Hungary, Poland, and Turkey. Whatever short-term benefit one might gain from a court-packing scheme, the long-term impact would undoubtedly be to fundamentally weaken the Court, which would only serve to empower either a president or a party that sought to consolidate power more generally.

I have long experience thinking about constitutional hardball because I wrote my doctoral dissertation on the statehood process, which is perhaps the weakest board in the Constitutional flooring for anyone seeking to play hardball (see below). The main relevant lesson I learned from studying statehood is that the flexibility of our Constitutional design is usually a source of its enduring strength, but in the wrong moments can become a profound weakness.

 Todd Richmond at AP:  

Wisconsin Republicans released sweeping lame-duck legislation Friday that would move the 2020 presidential primary, restrict early voting and weaken both Democratic Attorney General-elect Josh Kaul and Gov.-elect Tony Evers.

The GOP aims to hold a hearing on the bills Monday and take floor votes on Tuesday, giving current Gov. Scott Walker a chance to reshape state government again before he leaves office in January.

"Wisconsin law, written by the legislature and signed into law by a governor, should not be erased by the potential political maneuvering of the executive branch," Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said in a joint statement. "The legislature is the most representative branch in government and we will not stop being a strong voice for our constituents."

The package is loaded with contentious proposals, chief among them a plan to shift the 2020 presidential primary from the first Tuesday in April to the second Tuesday in March.

Republicans have acknowledged the shift is a purely political tactic as conservative state Supreme Court Justice Daniel Kelly, a Walker appointee, will be on the April ballot and the GOP fears a Democratic wave could cost him his job. They've said decoupling Kelly's race from the primary could help him.

Rob Christensen at The News & Observer:

Shortly before [Democrat Roy] Cooper took office, the GOP leaders called a special legislative session which slashed the governor’s appointments from 1500 to 300; required legislative confirmation of the governor’s Cabinet; and took away the governor’s power to appoint trustees to the campuses of the University of North Carolina system.

It turns out, the GOP lawmakers were just getting warmed up.

Now the legislature wants voters in November to pass two constitutional amendments that would further weaken the governor. One amendment would put the election machinery in the hands of the legislature by giving lawmakers control over who serves on the election board. Another would give the legislature a major role in filling judicial vacancies, increasing their power over the courts, which have been routinely ruling the legislature’s power grabs as illegal.

The five living former governors – three Democrats and two Republicans – have called for the amendments’ defeat. The state’s six former N.C. Supreme Court justices – four Democrats and two Republicans – are also urging voters to reject them.

Florida Surpasses New York

The Census reports:

By adding an average of 803 new residents each day between July 1, 2013 and July 1, 2014, Florida passed New York to become the nation’s third most populous state, according to U.S. Census Bureau state population estimates released today. Florida’s population grew by 293,000 over this period, reaching 19.9 million. The population of New York increased by 51,000 to 19.7 million. 

California remained the nation’s most populous state in 2014, with 38.8 million residents, followed by Texas, at 27.0 million. Although the list of the 10 most populous states overall was unchanged, two other states did change positions, as North Carolina moved past Michigan to take the ninth spot. 

Another milestone took place in Georgia (ranked 8th), which saw its population surpass 10 million for the first time. 

North Dakota was the nation’s fastest-growing state over the last year. Its population increased 2.2 percent, followed by the 1.7 percent growth in Nevada and Texas. Each of the 10 fastest-growing states was in the South or West with the exception of North Dakota.  

Six states lost population between July 1, 2013, and July 1, 2014: Illinois (9,972 or -0.08 percent), West Virginia (3,269 or -0.18 percent), Connecticut (2,664 or -0.07 percent), New Mexico (1,323 or -0.06 percent, Alaska (527 or -0.07 percent) and Vermont (293 or -0.05 percent)..

Hispanic State Population

In its new statistical portrait of the Hispanic population, Pew provides detail on geographic distribution:

What an Actual Vote for President Looks Like

Meeting in state capitols, the Electoral College is today formally voting to give President Obama a second term.  Click here for video of the Ohio electors.  Click here for video of North Carolina electors.

Here is the ballot of Pennyslvania elector Josh Shapiro:

State Legislatures Matter

Our chapter on federalism discusses the importance of state legislatures.  At the Washington Post, Chris Cillizza addresses this point, likening them to baseball's minor leagues:

But, like the minor leagues — where potential stars hone their craft — the state legislatures matter more than most people realize. Not only are they an incubator for young political talent but they also produce tons of legislation that draws national attention.

A few examples:

* The Arizona legislature’s controversial immigration bill, the most stringent in the country.
* The Virginia legislature’s bill regarding mandatory ultrasounds — transvaginal and otherwise.
* The photo identification law in Pennsylvania that has become a touchpoint in the broader voter ID fight nationally.
* The North Carolina House and Senate agreed to put Amendment One, affirming that marriage is between a man and a woman, on the ballot earlier this year.

There are lots (and lots) of other. But they all point to the same thing: State legislatures matter — big time. 

Registered Independents

A new report from Third Way examines voter registration data, showing an increase in the the number of voters not formally affiliated with either party.

The number of registered Independents has increased since 2008 in many of the battleground states that will decide the 2012 election. Among 12 likely battleground states, 8 have partisan voter registration—Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. In 7 of these 8 battleground states (all but Iowa), Independent registration gained ground relative to both parties in terms of voter registration between 2008 and 2011.

In each battleground state, Democratic registration fared worse relative to both Republican and Independent registration between 2008 and 2011. In all eight states, Republican registration gained relative to Democratic registration between 2008 and 2011.

The importance of Independents has grown over time as voters are increasingly leaving the traditional two-party system. Based on the combination of this general trend and the rise in both registration and self-identification of Independents since 2008, the most likely scenario for 2012 is that Independents will make up a bigger portion of the electorate next year than in any election since 1976, based on national exit polls.

Open publication - Free publishing

Same-Sex Marriage

Yesterday, the president endorsed same-sex marriage. At Mother Jones, Adam Serwer is critical from a liberal perspective:

But Obama has endorsed marriage equality federalism—not the notion that marriage for gays and lesbians is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution that can never be taken away. Obama has adopted the same position that Vice President Dick Cheney did in 2004, when Cheney said he believed in marriage equality but that the states should be allowed to decide by a show of hands, as North Carolina did Tuesday, whether gays and lesbians have the same rights as everyone else.

Shortly before the president made his comments, he appeared in New York with Governor Andrew Cuomo.  Politicker reports that Cuomo used a significant phrase:

“I believe in states rights. [emphasis added] I would like to see a place where this law is accepted all across the nation. I advocated as such,” he said. “I don’t know that the solution should be the federal government telling states what to do. I think the American people will get there and I think they are on the road to getting there. And I think it is about communication and understanding. I have evolved on this. I think people when they understand what we are talking about, they reflect on it, then I think you are going to see more and more of this country turning to a place where they support marriage equality."

As our textbook and this blog have noted, liberals once regarded the phrase "states' rights" with suspicion, but the marriage issue has led many of them -- including the president -- to embrace it.

Will the president's change of position help or hurt politically?  On the one hand, public opinion seems to be shifting in favor of same-sex marriage. Gallup reports:

Fifty percent of Americans believe same-sex marriages should be recognized by law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages -- down slightly from 53% last year, but marking only the second time in Gallup's history of tracking this question that at least half of Americans have supported legal same-sex marriage. Forty-eight percent say such marriages should not be legal.

The ballot box provides a different picture, as Rachel Weiner reports at The Washington Post:

Yet 32 times since 1998, voters have gone to the polls and voted against gay marriage.* Thirty-eight states prohibit gay marriage in some fashion. Even in “blue” states like California, Oregon and Delaware, gay marriage bans stand. North Carolina’s Amendment One Tuesday night was just the latest in a long line of failures at the ballot box for proponents of gay marriage. (Support for bans is falling over time, according to HRC: in 2004 they passed on average 71 percent to 29 percent, but in 2008 the average was 57 percent to 43 percent.)

* A ban in Arizona failed in 2006 but a narrower version passed in 2008.

SEE INFOGRAPHIC HERE