In the immediate wake of Prop 8's victory in California, much of the conversation in the blogosphere was dominated by anger – real and perceived – by some gay activists toward African Americans, acrimony grounded in eventually refuted claims that black voters provided the margin of victory. While Prop 8 opponents were understandably frustrated, the way some lashed out at African Americans was counterproductive at best. Although the Right is still trying hard to drive a wedge between blacks and gay rights activists, the broader conversation has mostly moved on.

This weekend's historic grassroots protests against Prop 8, organized via Join the Impact, have people thinking about the future again. And that's where our focus belongs. Prop 8's supporters have the past on their side, but we have the future. My advice to the marriage ban supporters is to savor their victories now because they're going to find out what it's like to be on the wrong side of history.

Even in defeat we can see the signs of victories to come. According to a CNN exit poll, 61% of voters aged 18-29 opposed Prop 8, while 61% of 65 and older voters backed it. That tells you where we're headed, especially if you compare those results to 2000, when according to an LA Times exit poll 18-29 year old voters supported the anti-gay Proposition 22 by a margin of 58-42. The final vote tallies tell a similar story. Prop 22 passed in 2000 with 61% of the 7.5 million votes cast, but Prop 8 passed with just 52% of the 12 million votes cast. Prop 8 was also defeated across a much broader area of the state than Prop 22 (results by county for Prop 22 & Prop 8).

As I see it, the biggest story about Prop 8 is the California electorate's strong shift in favor of marriage equality in just a matter of years. A majority of white voters backed Prop 22 but opposed Prop 8. We'll be able to say the same thing about African Americans and Hispanics in the future if we commit ourselves now to doing the necessary outreach, education, and relationship-building activism – something our opponents have been doing for years.

The Religious Right is the real obstacle to equality. They bankrolled Prop 8 and led an aggressive and misleading campaign that convinced many voters that voting 'yes' on Prop 8 was a vote to protect their religious freedom and their children. There are millions of voters, of all races and ethnicities, many of whom are religious, who might vote today to support a marriage ban, but only because they've heard the lies spread by opponents of equality, and haven't had the opportunity to have a real conversation about the impact of discrimination on same-sex couples and their families.

We may have history and momentum on our side, but as we saw on November 4, progress is not inevitable, especially when the Right is willing to do and say anything to prevent it. It's time to learn our lessons, revise our strategies, and commit ourselves to strategic, respectful outreach to those Americans who need to hear from us.

Kathryn Kolbert is president of People For the American Way

At a DC press conference this morning, the GOP trotted out two elder statesmen to do its dirty work – former senators John Danforth and Warren Rudman. Echoing accusations made by McCain and the RNC against the community organizing group ACORN, they falsely warned that voter fraud could throw the election into chaos.

With a straight face Danforth said that 2008 could be like 2000 if we don’t act now. But I’m sorry, wasn’t 2000 when his party strong-armed the recount and disenfranchised thousands of Floridians? But never mind that.

In fact, today’s press conference was just the latest effort by the GOP to justify voter suppression under the guise of so-called election integrity. As in the past, Republicans have latched onto a few colorful but insignificant examples – e.g. a man who was registered to vote 73 times and a 7-year-old child who was registered – to advocate for draconian enforcement measures that disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters, typically minority and low-income voters.

But there are already safeguards in place that prevent people who submit fraudulent voter registrations from actually voting. In fact, there is no evidence of significant voter fraud of any variety anywhere in the nation. At the urging of the GOP, the Justice Department sought evidence of fraud but came up empty-handed.

However, there is evidence for significant vote suppression and disenfranchisement. As the New York Times reported last week: “Tens of thousands of eligible voters in at least six swing states have been removed from the rolls or have been blocked from registering in ways that appear to violate federal law.” This is what Danforth and Rudman would have talked about today if they really cared about election integrity.

They also would have talked about the various barriers to voting that members of their party have erected, like rejecting voter registration forms not printed on 80-pound bond paper or requiring names on voter registration forms to exactly match records in existing databases (e.g. Mike R. Neuman would be rejected if listed elsewhere as Michael R. Neuman). Or how about the strict voter ID laws put in place by Republicans? They seem reasonable enough, until you consider that millions of voting-age Americans (perhaps as high as 10%) do not have driver’s licenses.

The logic behind the GOP’s efforts is as simple as it is undemocratic: the fewer people who vote, the better off Republicans candidates will be. When you hear Republicans talk about vote fraud, here’s what they really mean:

Kathryn Kolbert is President of People For the American Way.

Today’s the first day of the Supreme Court’s new term, and President Bush is using the occasion to appear before the Cincinnati Federalist Society. He’s being joined by a coterie of right-wing judicial activists who helped him push hundreds of nominations through the Senate. Among them will be Wendy Long, whose Judicial Confirmation Network just launched a nasty smear campaign against Obama.

Bush is taking a victory lap, and you almost can’t blame him. Of all the terrible things that he set out to do, shifting the federal courts far to the right is the only thing he’s achieved. A full one of every three federal judges were appointed by Bush, including Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito on the Supreme Court, and they have steadily chipped away at our rights.

But Bush couldn’t quite close the deal – the right-wing bloc on the Supreme Court is still one vote short of an unstoppable majority. Justice Stevens – 88 years young and the most progressive member of the Supreme Court – stubbornly refused to retire. Justices Ginsburg and Souter, who have reportedly eyed retirement, also weathered the Bush reign, presumably in hopes of a better political environment next year.

What that means is McCain, if elected, stands to achieve Bush’s goal of a right-wing court. There’s no uncertainty here – McCain has pledged to nominate “clones of Roberts and Alito”:

So that’s where we’re at. The next 40 years of the Supreme Court are on the ballot.

Kathryn Kolbert is President of People For the American Way

The Right Wing has a mantra about Supreme Court nominations: No New Souters. They're talking about Justice David Souter, who was nominated by the first President Bush but left conservatives feeling burned. They thought he would be another Scalia or Thomas but were apoplectic when he failed to go along with the program - in fact, he often stands up for the rights of individuals against the powerful business and government interests favored by the Right.

Progressives, on the other hand, have had the unfortunate experience of watching this play out in reverse. Senator Joe Lieberman arrived on the national stage as the running mate of Al Gore, whose campaign stressed support of the people over the powerful. But he has gone down a reactionary path in the years since, and seems destined to become the next Zell Miller.

We can't afford to have another VP nominee who would undermine the progressive movement from within. When we talk about Barack Obama and his coming decision, we ought to have a mantra of our own: No New Liebermans. Instead, Obama must choose a running mate who shares his - and our - progressive values and is firmly committed to pursuing them.

To help get the message across, People For the American Way has launched a petition that calls on Obama to choose a progressive. You can sign the petition and enter your preferred VP nominee here. Next week we will present the petitions and top three VP vote-getters directly to the Obama campaign. Now is the time for progressives to make their voices heard!

(By Kathryn Kolbert, President of the PFAW)

Shirley Preiss was born in Kentucky in 1910 - a full 10 years before American women gained the right to vote. She first voted in a presidential election in 1932, for FDR. She's voted in every presidential election since, but that's all about to change due to Arizona's draconian voter ID law.

As Art Levine reported, Shirley effectively lost her right to vote when she moved to Arizona:

After living in Arizona for two years, she was eagerly looking forward to casting her ballot in the February primary for the first major woman candidate for President, Hillary Clinton. But lacking a birth certificate or even elementary school records to prove she's a native-born American citizen, the state of Arizona's bureaucrats determined that this former school-teacher who taught generations of Americans shouldn't be allowed to vote.

The state's voter ID law, passed in 2004, requires voters to show ID at the polling place and to provide proof of citizenship in order to register. But birth certificates weren't issued in 1910 in Shirley's birthplace of Clinton, KY, and her elementary school no longer exists.

Shirley appeared on the local news Monday night in Phoenix to tell her story:

She's far from the only victim of this law. The Arizona Advocacy Network reports that nearly 40,000 voter registration forms have been rejected due to inadequate proof of citizenship. And it's getting to be a national problem.

The Supreme Court gave Indiana the green light last month on its restrictive voter ID law, and other states have already or are in the process of passing similar laws. Everywhere such laws are enacted, the voting rights of thousands of Americans - especially among the poor, elderly, and minorities - are put at risk. Fortunately many other states have fended off voter ID laws, and I'm proud that People For the American Way's Democracy Campaign played a role in many of those fights. Nothing short of a concerted effort by the progressive movement over the coming years will succeed in safeguarding the right to vote.

Kolbert is president of People For the American Way

(John Amato-Let's welcome once again---Kathryn Kolbert---President of the People for the American Way)

On May 29, 2007 the Supreme Court issued its infamous 5-4 ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear. The ruling, authored by Bush nominee Justice Samuel Alito (who replaced Sandra Day O'Connor), didn't only harm Lilly Ledbetter. It made it much easier for any business to engage in pay discrimination against its employees, with complete impunity.

Lilly Ledbetter faced years of pay discrimination, but she only learned about it late in her career. Thanks to an anonymous tip, she learned she was being paid far less than her men doing the same job. She sued and won back pay. But Goodyear didn't give up and was finally rewarded by the Supreme Court, which ruled in an opinion by Alito that workers must sue within 180 days of the initial decision by an employer to pay a discriminatory wage - even if they don't learn of it until later and their pay is still lower as a result. That's ludicrous.

(We sat down with Lilly last year, and she told us about her case and the discrimination she faced - watch the videos here).

Democrats attempted to undo the damage by passing new legislation, but Senate Republicans blocked it last month. McCain opposed it and has been loudly singing the praises of Alito and his fellow right-wing justices. He evidently thinks pay discrimination is a winning issue.

Here's McCain at a voter forum earlier in the month. He tried to put a 14-yr-old girl on the spot, but she'll have the last laugh when his smug endorsement of the ruling comes back to haunt him:

On the one year anniversary of the decision, it's painfully clear what's at stake. McCain says he wants more Alitos on the court, but for Lilly Ledbetter and other Americans who rely on the court for justice in the face of powerful interests, we already have one Alito too many.