An early-state problem; and teachers union doesn’t relent

Democrats are unlikely to follow in Republican footsteps on early-state status, and the teachers union doubles down on Democrats who opposed them — here’s your Friday Flash:

Republicans copy Democrats, but not vice-versa: After Nevada Democrats, using leverage provided by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, moved up their presidential caucus in 2008, the state’s Republicans tardily did the same. It seemed like a good idea at the time, and the caucus four years ago was uneventful, mostly because no one but Mitt Romney really participated.

But four years later, the caucus was too eventful, and now we have inevitable speculation that the state may lose its early-state status, at least on the GOP side.

Consider: After rolling over for the Republican National Committee for a few pieces of silver — or a nice box in Tampa for the national convention? — the state GOP moved from third to fifth, then turned the caucus into an unprecedented disaster, and now the same RNC may penalize Nevada in 2016.

“In Nevada, the fact that they screwed it up twice (in 2008 and 2012) really is inexcusable,” RNC official David Norcross told National Journal’s Reid Wilson on Thursday. Norcross is conflating the caucus disaster with the 2008 state convention embarrassment — it had to be shut down lest too many Ron Paul delegates get sent to the national convention. But Norcross’ use of the word “inexcusable,” considering the turnout, is apt.

By moving back to fifth, the state GOP already made a huge miscalculation — and trusted the RNC, an even larger one. But the Democrats, who caucused this year on a different date and remained in January, surely will not follow suit, especially if — if — Reid is still the Democratic leader.

The only real issue could be switching to a primary, gaining currency after last weekend’s debacle. That could be a problem because the Democratic National Committee conferred early status on one primary state (South Carolina) and one caucus state (Nevada). Unlike the GOP, Democrats carried off their caucus in ’08, generated record turnout, and, with same-day registration, brought 30,000 new voters into the fold and created enthusiasm and energy that helped lead to a 2008 sweep.

But if Nevada moves to a primary and the DNC raises objections, that would require a special session to change. And all of this, thanks to a state GOP that genuflected to the RNC, gained no benefit and now may be punished for the long term.

•••

You’re either with us or you’re for education reform: The state teachers union apparently has not gotten over the 2011 Legislature’s passage of two education reform bills that changed probationary periods for teachers and eradicated the last-in-first-out policies for layoffs.

First, it put out a meaningless, angry report card on lawmakers.

Now, in a candidate questionnaire, the union asks lawmakers “why you voted against protecting due process for Nevada’s educators.” And then this: “Do you believe that educators deserve the right of due process and that your job as a legislator is to fight for their ability to defend themselves against allegations of misconduct or poor performance?”

Whether you, like Gov. Brian Sandoval, considered the bills “groundbreaking” or, like the conservative Nevada Policy Research Institute, labeled the changes “extremely minor,” they are not quite the apocalypse for teachers the union suggests in its questionnaire. Both measures passed overwhelmingly — 11 of 63 lawmakers opposed one, and 10 of 63 the other — and were greased by the final budget compromise.

Nevada State Education Association boss Lynn Warne confirmed that those who opposed the bills were automatically endorsed, and many have NSEA checks. She insisted that “due process rights” was not an extreme term, that the “system had worked” and that this is “faddish reform” that was “not research-based” and is “union-busting.”

Them’s fighting words, especially for all those Democrats who voted for the bills, which were originally NSEA-endorsed but then opposed after changes were made that tended toward Sandoval’s point of view.

The rest of the questionnaire is pretty standard stuff — collective bargaining rights, broadening the tax base — except for a few peculiar questions such as: “Should the legislature enact laws that substitute its judgment for the judgment of school districts and employee groups?”

Really? Is that what those bills did? The superintendents seem happy with them, as I recall.

I don’t think the storm over those bills is nearly over, especially because the document has this boldfaced introduction: “Please know the answers you provide will not only weigh heavily during the endorsement process but is also a tool NSEA will use to evaluate your performance during the next legislative session.”

That is, you still have time to get your mind right and get our campaign help.

(I have posted the questionnaire on my blog).