April 18, 2011 Dear Senator, Elections in our nation operate by a fairly basic principle – count the ballots actually

cast. Yet a provision in the House of Representatives’ version of the FAA Reauthorization legislation, currently waiting to be reconciled with a separate Senate version of the legislation through the conference committee process, would eliminate these fair election standards for aviation and rail employees’ union elections, overseen by the National Mediation Board (NMB). The House version of the legislation, which passed that camber on April Fool’s Day, would count eligible voters who did not participate in the election the same as having voted “no.” – an undemocratic and unfair standard different from every other American election. The Senate version of the FAA legislation, which already passed that chamber, does not contain the anti-worker, unfair elections provision. Already, the Obama Administration has threatened to veto the FAA bill if the unfair elections provision remains in the legislation after conference negotiations. Since the House is proposing such an inherently skewed election standard for NMB elections, we thought you would be interested to see how elections for U.S. Senate would proceed if they were conducted under these proposed rules. If congressional elections proceeded under the proposed rules for the NMB elections, in which non-participants were counted as votes for the opponent, then none of the current Senators would have won election in 2010. The report on the following pages highlights the consequences of holding Senate elections like proposed NMB elections. The current rule is working and brings NMB elections in line with basic democratic tenets of fair elections. Don't hold union elections for aviation and rail employees to a different standard than any other American election. We hope the Senate will help ensure that the proposed repeal of the current NMB elections standards does not advance through Congress and that all elections in this nation remain fair and democratic. Sincerely, Communications Workers of America

What if Senate Elections Were Like Proposed NMB Union Elections?
If Unfair For Senators, Rules Are Unfair For Airline/Railroad Workers Elections in our nation operate by a fairly basic principle – that we only count ballots actually cast. Eligible voters who choose not to vote in an election certainly do not have their vote preferences assigned in one direction or another. These are fundamental cornerstones of elections that we consider fair and democratic. Yet a provision in the House of Representatives’ version of the FAA Reauthorization bill, currently waiting to be reconciled with a separate Senate version of the legislation through the conference committee process, would eliminate these fair election standards for airline and railroad union elections overseen by the National Mediation Board (NMB). The House version of the legislation, which passed that chamber on April Fools’ Day, would count eligible voters who did not participate in an election the same as actually having voted “no.” Needless to say, counting non-voters as “no” voters is a flagrant violation of fair election standards and would stack the decks against unions. The Senate version of the FAA legislation, which already passed that chamber, does not contain the anti-worker, unfair elections provision. Already, the Obama Administration has threatened to veto the FAA bill if the unfair elections provision remains in the legislation after conference negotiations. Applying the Proposed Standard to Senate Elections As this battle over basic fairness moves to the conference committee process, and since some in Congress are proposing such an inherently skewed election standard for NMB elections, we thought it would be interesting to see how their elections would proceed if we adopted these Members’ approach. What would the electoral impact be for Senators if they faced the same standards some of them are proposing for NMB elections? If Senate elections proceeded under the proposed rules for the NMB elections… Zero current Senators would have won their last election under this election standard. As with House Members, not a single Senator would have been elected in their last election using the proposed NMB election standard. Under these egregious election standards, votes for their actual opponent(s) in their previous election are tallied together with non-voting eligible voters, as non-voters are counted as “no” voters for the incumbent.
1

The average Senator would have only received 29.18% in their election. For the Democratic Senate caucus, the average Senator would have only received 30.07%; for Republicans, the average Senator would have only received 28.17%. Only 11 Senators would have broken 40%, while 37 Senators wouldn’t have even broken 25%. Even Senators elected during higher-turnout presidential years would fail to be elected: The Senators last on the ballot in 2008 – a presidential election year with heavier turnout – fared better than Senators last elected in either 2006 or 2010, yet still would not be elected under this standard. The 11 Senators who would come closest to election were each last on the ballot in 2008, as were 17 of the 20. Yet no Senator broke 50% under these election standards. The House of Representatives’ version of this report is accessible here. While this may seem a ridiculous model for conducting a Senate election, that’s exactly the point. If the NMB elections provision remains in the larger FAA bill, union certification for airline and railroad workers will rely on just such a standard. Non-voters in the election will be counted as “no” votes and tallied the same as voters who actually voted “no.” If such a standard is unfair and ridiculous for Senators and Members of Congress, it is unfair and ridiculous for all elections in our nation. The only votes that should count in an election are ones that are actually cast. This is not ideology, this is common sense. Keeping airline and railroad elections fair isn’t inherently pro-union. But ensuring that unions can’t win elections is inherently unfair and un-American. What it Means and Why it’s Important The National Mediation Board (NMB) adopted a rule change in 2010 to bring NMB elections in line with the same democratic principles as we use in all other American elections: only count the ballots of those who vote. Updating NMB’s elections standards received bi-partisan support in the 111th Congress, with 13 House Republicans sending a letter of support to the NMB. On April 1, 2011 in the House of Representatives, an amendment sponsored by the bi-partisan duo of Steven LaTourette (R-OH) and Jerry Costello (D-IL) and seeking to strip the provision from the larger FAA bill was defeated by a 220-206 vote. Despite the votes of every House Democrat and 16 Republicans House Members, who viewed the issue through the proper lens of fairness, not partisanship, Republican leadership and their ideological benefactors went to extreme lengths to ensure that Congress was the latest front in the ongoing attack on workers’ rights that we have seen throughout 2011. Beyond ideological opposition to unions, it’s hard to find a reason or rationale for wanting to return to such an egregiously unfair election model. In fact, since last year, when airline and rail workers’ election rules were brought in line with every other election we hold in our democracy,

2

successful and unsuccessful unionization votes have been split roughly 50-50 – it’s not an inherent advantage for unions for elections to be fair. The same election standards we use for congressional elections, not to mention workers covered under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), should be used for aviation and rail workers as well. This is not a pro-union way to conduct an election. It’s a common sense, prodemocracy way to conduct an election, independent from ideology or party. As the House and Senate prepare to negotiate the different versions of the FAA bill during the upcoming conference process, we hope and expect they will remove the egregious NMB elections provision from the larger legislation. In the remaining pages, we include Senator-specific information that shows what would happen to their elections if they were conducted under the proposed NMB standard. All Americans should oppose measures to conduct any election in our country – union or non-union – under such an unfair standard.

3

What Would Happen if Senate Elections Were Governed By Proposed NMB Elections Standards? Methodology: The House's proposed election standard for NMB elections would do the following for union elections: count “yes” votes for union organizing as “yes,” count “no” votes for union organizing as “no,” and, egregiously, also count non-participating eligible voters as having affirmatively voted “no.” Using this standard, in which non-participating voters are counted as “no” voters, we proceeded as follows to calculate Senate elections conducted under the NMB standards. To assess the vote against the Senator, we combined the actual votes cast against the Senator in their last election with the total of eligible voters in the state who did not vote during that election. We used the Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) estimate from the Census American Community Survey (5 year average from 2005-2009) as a proxy for eligible voters within the state, and relied on publicly available data sources (listed below data table) for election turnout information. The House of Representatives’ version of this report is accessible here.

State AK AK AL AL AR AR AZ AZ CA CA CO CO

Senator Mark Begich Lisa Murkowski ^ Jeff Sessions Richard Shelby Mark Pryor John Boozman John McCain Jon Kyl Barbara Boxer Dianne Feinstein Mark Udall Michael Bennet

Citizen Voting Age Population Estimate ** 479,940 479,940 3,430,111 3,430,111 2,067,620 2,067,620 4,087,550 4,087,550 21,942,928 21,942,928 3,364,438 3,364,438

Year Last Elected Or Re-Elected 2008 2010 2008 2010 2008 2010 2010 2006 2010 2006 2008 2010

Actual Vote For Senator In Last ReElection 151,767 101,091 1,305,383 964,329 798,085 447,562 926,372 607,778 4,377,730 4,193,833 1,230,994 799,072

Actual % Won by Senator In Last ReElection 47.9% N/A 63.5% 65.3% 79.4% 58.0% 59.3% 52.77% 52.1% 59.42% 52.8% 47.7%

Projected % Senator Would Have Won In Last Election If It Had Been Governed Under Proposed NMB Election Standard 31.62% 21.06% 38.06% 28.11% 38.60% 21.65% 22.66% 14.87% 19.95% 19.11% 36.59% 23.75%

Projected % That Would Have Voted Against Senator During Last Election If It Had Been Governed Under Proposed NMB Election Standard 68.38% 78.94% 61.94% 71.89% 61.40% 78.35% 77.34% 85.13% 80.05% 80.89% 63.41% 76.25% 4

State CT CT DE DE FL FL GA GA HI HI IA IA ID ID IL IL IN IN KS KS KY KY LA LA MA MA

Senator Richard Blumenthal Joe Lieberman Chris Coons Thomas Carper Bill Nelson Marco Rubio Johnny Isakson Saxby Chambliss* Daniel Inouye Daniel Akaka Tom Harkin Chuck Grassley James Risch Mike Crapo Richard Durbin Mark Kirk Richard Lugar Dan Coats Pat Roberts Jerry Moran Mitch McConnell Rand Paul Mary Landrieu David Vitter John Kerry Scott Brown #

Citizen Voting Age Population Estimate ** 2,460,489 2,460,489 623,673 623,673 12,534,073 12,534,073 6,475,882 6,475,882 907,520 907,520 2,206,632 2,206,632 1,036,206 1,036,206 8,733,407 8,733,407 4,607,963 4,607,963 1,983,023 1,983,023 3,174,289 3,174,289 3,229,245 3,229,245 4,621,481 4,621,481

Year Last Elected Or Re-Elected 2010 2006 2010 2006 2006 2010 2010 2008 2010 2006 2008 2010 2008 2010 2008 2010 2006 2010 2008 2010 2008 2010 2008 2010 2008 2010

Actual Vote For Senator In Last ReElection 627,085 563,725 173,900 170,544 2,854,036 2,615,262 1,462,823 1,228,033 276,928 210,118 941,665 714,667 371,744 318,704 3,616,210 1,765,594 1,155,577 950,244 727,121 578,768 953,816 755,061 988,298 715,304 1,971,974 1,168,178

Actual % Won by Senator In Last ReElection 55.1% 49.81% 56.6% 70.20% 60.31% 48.9% 58.1% 57.4% 74.8% 61.34% 62.6% 64.5% 57.6% 71.1% 67.8% 48.2% 87.18% 54.6% 60.2% 70.3% 52.9% 55.8% 52.1% 56.6% 65.8% 51.83%

Projected % Senator Would Have Won In Last Election If It Had Been Governed Under Proposed NMB Election Standard 25.49% 22.91% 27.88% 27.35% 22.77% 20.87% 22.59% 18.96% 30.51% 23.15% 42.67% 32.39% 35.88% 30.76% 41.41% 20.22% 25.08% 20.62% 36.67% 29.19% 30.05% 23.79% 30.60% 22.15% 42.67% 25.28%

Projected % That Would Have Voted Against Senator During Last Election If It Had Been Governed Under Proposed NMB Election Standard 74.51% 77.09% 72.12% 72.65% 77.23% 79.13% 77.41% 81.04% 69.49% 76.85% 57.33% 67.61% 64.12% 69.24% 58.59% 79.78% 74.92% 79.38% 63.33% 70.81% 69.95% 76.21% 69.40% 77.85% 57.33% 74.72% 5

State MD MD ME ME MI MI MN MN MO MO MS MS MT MT NC NC ND ND NE NE NH NH NJ NJ NM NM

Senator Barbara Mikulski Ben Cardin Susan Collins Olympia Snowe Carl Levin Debbie Stabenow Amy Klobuchar Al Franken Roy Blunt Claire McCaskill Thad Cochran Roger Wicker Max Baucus Jon Tester Kay Hagan Richard Burr John Hoeven Kent Conrad Mike Johanns Ben Nelson Jeanne Shaheen Kelly Ayotte Frank Lautenberg Robert Menendez Tom Udall Jeff Bingaman

Citizen Voting Age Population Estimate ** 3,933,011 3,933,011 1,019,489 1,019,489 7,327,818 7,327,818 3,761,628 3,761,628 4,370,002 4,370,002 2,125,339 2,125,339 728,994 728,994 6,458,600 6,458,600 488,833 488,833 1,268,687 1,268,687 986,395 986,395 5,812,473 5,812,473 1,348,771 1,348,771

Year Last Elected Or Re-Elected 2010 2006 2008 2006 2008 2006 2006 2008 2010 2006 2008 2008 2008 2006 2008 2010 2010 2006 2008 2006 2008 2010 2008 2006 2008 2006

Actual Vote For Senator In Last ReElection 1,055,387 894,830 444,300 398,723 3,038,386 2,148,637 1,279,515 1,212,431 1,051,495 1,047,049 766,111 683,409 349,394 198,302 2,249,311 1,448,003 181,409 149,317 455,854 371,777 358,438 272,703 1,951,218 1,165,596 505,128 383,228

Actual % Won by Senator In Last ReElection 61.8% 54.45% 61.5% 74.35% 62.6% 56.88% 58.00% 42.0% 54.3% 49.53% 61.7% 55.3% 72.9% 49.07% 52.7% 55.0% 76.2% 68.81% 57.6% 63.78% 51.7% 60.2% 55.6% 53.16% 61.2% 70.55%

Projected % Senator Would Have Won In Last Election If It Had Been Governed Under Proposed NMB Election Standard 26.83% 22.75% 43.58% 39.11% 41.46% 29.32% 34.01% 32.23% 24.06% 23.96% 36.05% 32.16% 47.93% 27.20% 34.83% 22.42% 37.11% 30.55% 35.93% 29.30% 36.34% 27.65% 33.57% 20.05% 37.45% 28.41%

Projected % That Would Have Voted Against Senator During Last Election If It Had Been Governed Under Proposed NMB Election Standard 73.17% 77.25% 56.42% 60.89% 58.54% 70.68% 65.99% 67.77% 75.94% 76.04% 63.95% 67.84% 52.07% 72.80% 65.17% 77.58% 62.89% 69.45% 64.07% 70.70% 63.66% 72.35% 66.43% 79.95% 62.55% 71.59% 6

State NV NV NY NY OH OH OK OK OR OR PA PA RI RI SC SC SD SD TN TN TX TX UT UT VA VA

Senator Harry Reid John Ensign Chuck Schumer Kirsten Gillibrand Sherrod Brown Rob Portman James Inhofe Tom Coburn Jeff Merkley Ron Wyden Robert Casey Pat Toomey Jack Reed Sheldon Whitehouse Lindsey Graham Jim DeMint Tim Johnson John Thune ** Lamar Alexander Bob Corker John Cornyn Kay Bailey Hutchison Mike Lee Orrin Hatch Mark Warner Jim Webb

Citizen Voting Age Population Estimate ** 1,625,603 1,625,603 13,106,002 13,106,002 8,563,318 8,563,318 2,602,317 2,602,317 2,663,100 2,663,100 9,411,473 9,411,473 759,502 759,502 3,241,214 3,241,214 591,067 591,067 4,534,358 4,534,358 14,896,394 14,896,394 1,703,978 1,703,978 5,498,721 5,498,721

Year Last Elected Or Re-Elected 2010 2006 2010 2010 2006 2010 2008 2010 2008 2010 2006 2010 2008 2006 2008 2010 2008 2010 2008 2006 2008 2006 2010 2006 2008 2006

Actual Vote For Senator In Last ReElection 361,655 321,186 2,710,735 2,519,806 2,133,705 2,123,851 763,375 716,347 864,392 775,569 2,357,058 1,995,026 320,644 205,274 1,076,534 792,133 237,889 227,947 1,579,477 929,835 4,337,469 2,658,657 360,130 344,416 2,369,327 1,172,671

Actual % Won by Senator In Last ReElection 50.2% 55.35% 65.4% 62.0% 55.93% 57.3% 56.7% 70.5% 48.9% 57.2% 58.69% 51.0% 73.3% 53.48% 57.6% 62.4% 62.5% 100.00% 65.2% 50.73% 54.8% 61.68% 61.6% 62.62% 65.0% 49.60%

Projected % Senator Would Have Won In Last Election If It Had Been Governed Under Proposed NMB Election Standard 22.25% 19.76% 20.68% 19.23% 24.92% 24.80% 29.33% 27.53% 32.46% 29.12% 25.04% 21.20% 42.22% 27.03% 33.21% 24.44% 40.25% 38.57% 34.83% 20.51% 29.12% 17.85% 21.13% 20.21% 43.09% 21.33%

Projected % That Would Have Voted Against Senator During Last Election If It Had Been Governed Under Proposed NMB Election Standard 77.75% 80.24% 79.32% 80.77% 75.08% 75.20% 70.67% 72.47% 67.54% 70.88% 74.96% 78.80% 57.78% 72.97% 66.79% 75.56% 59.75% 61.43% 65.17% 79.49% 70.88% 82.15% 78.87% 79.79% 56.91% 78.67% 7

State VT VT WA WA WI WI WV WV WY WY

Senator Bernard Sanders Pat Leahy Patty Murray Maria Cantwell Herb Kohl Ron Johnson John Rockefeller Joe Manchin Michael Enzi John Barrasso

Citizen Voting Age Population Estimate ** 479,715 479,715 4,533,605 4,533,605 4,155,117 4,155,117 1,414,322 1,414,322 389,899 389,899

Year Last Elected Or Re-Elected 2006 2010 2010 2006 2006 2010 2008 2010 2008 2008

Actual Vote For Senator In Last ReElection 170,866 148,444 1,172,924 1,097,931 1,436,623 1,125,637 447,560 280,771 189,046 183,063

Actual % Won by Senator In Last ReElection 65.48% 64.4% 51.9% 56.80% 67.37% 51.9% 63.7% 53.5% 75.8% 73.4%

Projected % Senator Would Have Won In Last Election If It Had Been Governed Under Proposed NMB Election Standard 35.62% 30.94% 25.87% 24.22% 34.57% 27.09% 31.64% 19.85% 48.49% 46.95%

Projected % That Would Have Voted Against Senator During Last Election If It Had Been Governed Under Proposed NMB Election Standard 64.38% 69.06% 74.13% 75.78% 65.43% 72.91% 68.36% 80.15% 51.51% 53.05%

2006 Election Results from the Associated Press (via NPR), 2008 Election Results from the CNN, accessed 4/11/11 2008 Election Results from the New York Times, accessed 4/11/11 2010 Election Results from the Associated Press (via Politico), accessed 4/11/11 ** CVAP (Citizen Voting Age Population) Estimate from the Census American Community Survey (5 year average from 2005-2009) * 2008 Run-Off Results ^ 2010 Alaska Senate results from Politico, 12/30/10 # 2010 MA Special Elect Results from MA Secretary of State, accessed 4/11/11 ** 2010 SD Results from SD Secretary of State, accessed 4/11/11

8

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful