Last week’s elections in Virginia were no earthquake. Glenn Youngkin, the newly elected Republican Governor, squeaked home by the narrowest of margins. The swing from blue to red was a modest 5 percent.
Yet last week’s election could just turn out to be one of the most significant elections in America for a generation. Why?
Virginia offers the wider conservative movement a route map back towards electoral success – if (big if) they have the good sense to follow it.
It is easy when living in a state like Mississippi to assume that the Republican party is well entrenched. The reality across much of America, however, is that the conservative movement which dominated American politics when Ronald Reagan was in the White House, has suffered defeat and retreat ever since.
The last time that a Republican candidate won a popular majority in a U.S. Presidential election, for example, was back in 2004. Republican candidates have only managed to win the popular vote in two of the past nine Presidential elections.
It is not just that Republican candidates have not done so well. Even more ominously, not every Republican candidate has been …. how might I put this delicately? …. conservative.
Over the past couple of decades, states like Virginia, which at one time tended to lean conservative, appeared to have shifted decisively to the left. Until last week, that is.
Despite having failed to win a state-wide election for twelve years, last week conservative candidates in Virginia were elected not only Governor, but Lt Governor and Attorney General, too.
The Virginia result was a victory for school choice conservatism. With parents denied any real power in the public education system, moms and dads in Virginia felt anxious about some of the things their kids were being taught – such as Critical Race Theory.
Youngkin repeatedly made the issue of whether parents should be allowed a say in their child’s education the center piece in his campaign. Youngkin also calmly but firmly insisted that Critical Race Theory is wrong.
And guess what? It turns out that giving people school choice is wildly popular and that millions of ordinary Americans are not that keen on having their kids indoctrinated into believing that their country is intrinsically racists either.
Here in Mississippi, we recently published a report on Critical Race Theory in our state. It shows how conservatives might offer something similar here, too.
Perhaps the most striking thing about the Virginia result was the record support that the conservative side got from both Hispanic and African America voters. It turns out that opposing a divisive anti-American ideology has a broad appeal. Again, Magnolia conservatives should take note.
One final observation about Virginia. The conservative side in the election did something that too often conservatives are loathe to do; they tried to understand and listen to their audience before trying to persuade them.
Too many of those that work in public policy presume that arguments that excite them appeal to everyone else. They don’t. In order to win in Virginia, conservative strategists used messages and messengers that resonated with the folk they needed to win over.
Instead of school choice, they talked about school freedom. Instead of attacking obstructive teacher unions, they made it clear that they wanted a better deal for teachers – if not necessarily union bosses. It takes more than a bumper sticker to win over hearts and minds. A new conservative movement that understood this, while offering real school freedom and an alternative to critical race theory, could be unstoppable.
The individual states that make up our nation are at a crossroads. The recent wave of federal funding to states across the country has triggered questions about the extent of federal involvement and the impact of federal funding on state sovereignty and public policy.
From the specific Covid grants issued by Congress, to the bureaucratic matching system for federal programs such as Medicaid, nearly every federal dollar has something attached to it that carries the will of Washington into the states. While not all of these dollars are a precursor to bad federal policy being imposed on the states, an increasingly leftist federal government is tying more and more strings to these dollars. States need a strategy to press against such actions.
This expansion of federal control using federal money has been pushed in multiple sectors. In healthcare, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has imposed a vaccinee mandate on hospitals that receive federal funding through Medicaid and Medicare. In the education sector, the Department of Education has asserted an increasingly leftist agenda through its programs, while openly asserting on its own website that “any state that does not want to abide by a federal program's requirements can simply choose not to accept the federal funds associated with that program.”
Thus, we see that while the federal government has increasingly asserted its power over the states, much of the state sovereignty issues are ultimately questions of what dollars the state will accept. The beauty of American federalism is the ability of the states to stand against federal overreach by simply refusing federal funds or agreeing to take them only under certain terms.
Such a stance has been effective in recent months. In April 2021, the Department of Education announced its intention to prioritize the teaching of Critical Race Theory as it awarded civics and history education grants to the state education systems. In response, the state of South Dakota went so far as to directly reject all federal dollars tied to such federal civics and history grant programs. In an earlier response, 20 states had voiced their opposition and the federal government largely backed down after the pushback.
This success presents an important strategy that states can use to press against the whims of Washington. This strategy is twofold -with defensive and offensive elements. As a defense, states should not enroll or expand their involvement in any federal funding program that locks the state in and subjects it to whatever future terms the federal government may impose. On the offensive side, states should directly reject any effort by the federal government to impose damaging policies that are “sugarcoated” with optional federal dollars.
Until states collectively recognize their ability and duty to refuse funds that will impose bad policies on their citizens, the federal government will likely continue down a path of brazen overreach. Conservative state legislatures should reclaim “the power of the purse.” They should consciously reject any attempt by the federal government to wrongly manipulate public policy using the power of federal dollars. The future of these United States depends on it.
In 2020, the Mississippi legislature passed a bill that included a provision to implement a digital driver’s license program that allows citizens to keep a copy of their license on their smartphones. The program is expected to roll out soon. However, there are still some unanswered questions that could pose a threat to individual liberty if not addressed.
In the first place, there must be an understanding of how most digital license programs work. The text of the bill, HB1371, specifies that the Department of Public Safety “shall develop and implement a driver's license or driving permit in electronic format as an additional option for license or permit holders. Acceptable electronic formats include display of electronic images on a cellular phone or any other type of electronic device.”
For most of the states that have implemented a digital license, the license is stored via encryption on a government-sanctioned smartphone app. Mississippi’s program development has followed this model. When the digital license is requested by law enforcement, store clerks, or others, they can scan the smartphone to verify the license's authenticity. After authenticity has been verified via cryptography, the driver’s license information is shared with the individual requesting it.
At first glance, this concept of a digital driver’s license might seem to be a fairly straightforward advancement for the digital age. To a certain degree, this is true. There is nothing inherently wrong with implementing a digital license option in addition to the traditional plastic driver’s license. However, digital licenses bring a level of complexity that is not quite there for physical licenses, and this complexity must be properly addressed.
In the first place, it is important to consider the potential threats to individual liberty that can occur if a digital license program is poorly designed and does not have the proper protections in place for citizens. There are several essential issues to consider.
For instance, consider the circumstances where a driver’s license might be requested. Such examples might include traffic stops, certain purchases, and entrance into restricted buildings. Under traditional circumstances, the physical card would be presented, and there is no centralized reporting structure that logs when and where the license is used. However, in the context of a digital license, this could change.
If the digital license app was programmed to report to the DMV as it was used, such data could be compiled to track citizens' actions. Depending on how the app is designed, this data could include the date, time, location, and the circumstances of the digital license being presented.
Instead of having such a system, any digital license should have authentication protocols that can operate offline without reporting the license usage details to the DMV. This is essential to prevent a digital license from being a tool of systematic state government surveillance.
In addition, there have been plans made in Mississippi to eventually expand the proposed digital driver’s license app by allowing citizens to also include additional state-issued documents such as hunting licenses, real estate licenses, and concealed carry permits. This brings in the question of how much data centralization could eventually be placed into the digital license app.
While the concept of a voluntary centralized digital wallet for government-issued licenses is one thing, there is a potential slippery slope. Already, some in the state have proposed including non-licensing information, such as Covid vaccination cards. At this time, officials have insisted that the option to include other documents in the digital wallet in addition to a standard driver’s license would be strictly voluntary. However, it is important to maintain in the future that the digital ease of adding additional information to a digital wallet should never lead to even more data being requested or digital wallets becoming mandatory.
These are complicated matters that require careful thought and analysis. Yet, despite all of these complexities, the state has had a relatively low amount of public communications on the eventual parameters for the digital license program. For something as fundamental as license identification protocols, and something as complex as mobile app technology, the state should be entirely transparent on the final procedures for development and implementation.
It is essential so that the personal liberty of Mississippians is never compromised for the sake of digital technology. The concept of license digitization comes as no surprise in an increasingly digital world. But the proper guardrails must be in place to ensure that such digitalization is never a precursor for the erosion of individual liberties.
Last September, Toyota, one of the nation’s largest manufacturers of cars with respect to magnitude, announced that the company was going to take a three-week production break. This was due to the company’s slowdown in auto manufacturing across the globe. Workers were allowed to take unpaid leave, work at the plant at various jobs, or take paid time off. This was part of a larger issue that the company is facing as it is cutting global production by 40 percent due to a worldwide shortage of computer chips and vehicle supply parts.
Situations like this often arise when supply chains are not properly handled. California, for example, has become a very weak center for business in this respect. Meanwhile, states such as Texas and Florida have open ports and have invited shipping companies to bring their cargo.
What is the difference? One of the possible reasons is that California policies creates unnecessary barriers to efficiency. For example, California has adopted a law called AB5. This law recategorized truck drivers so that they could not operate as independent contractors working for several companies. In addition, environmental regulations have inhibited the expansion of storage facilities, leading to even more logistical challenges.
It is these kinds of environmental and labor policies that lead to deficiencies in the supply chain. While supplies in Toyota have rebounded and the company plans to make up for lost time, it goes to show how much of an impact a shortage of supplies can have on a given company.
Covid has certainly been a factor in these issues; however, the government cannot use Covid as an excuse for bad policy. On the federal level especially, government has taken prescriptive action for things that do not ultimately help the problem. Anti-contractor legislation, EPA truck emission regulations, and even Biden’s vaccine mandate have all contributed to the nation’s supply chain issues.
Mississippi should seek to counteract these policies as it builds an economy of free-market principles. While they seem justified, government regulations all too often stifle the growth necessary to have a self-sustaining economy. The state legislature should commit to examining the apparent deficiencies in the supply chain system and explore ways to alleviate the burden on private companies that aid the state economy. Giving up government control is the most effective way to manage supply chains.
We did it! The Mississippi Justice Institute (MJI) just stopped the Biden Administration’s private employer vaccine mandate in its tracks. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily halted the mandate, finding that there is "cause to believe there are grave statutory and constitutional issues with the Mandate."
MJI represents Gulf Coast Restaurant Group (GCRG) in the lawsuit challenging the mandate. GCRG is the corporate family that owns several Mississippi restaurants, including Half Shell Oyster House and the Rack House. GCRG, which is already struggling with staffing shortages in its restaurants, challenged the mandate in court because it will encourage even more of its employees to quit their jobs and could even make it difficult to keep many of its restaurants open.
Private employers in Louisiana and Texas have also joined the suit, as well as the Attorneys General of those states. The State of Mississippi is represented by Attorney General Lynn Fitch.
The federal vaccine mandate for private employers requires companies with over 100 employees to force their employees to be vaccinated, or be subject to weekly testing (at the employee’s expense) and constant mask wearing – on pain of losing their job.
While this halt to the federal vaccine mandate is only a temporary measure, it is a crucial first round victory. It signals that the courts understand the serious and myriad legal problems with this mandate, and are willing to hold the federal government to its constitutionally limited role.
If you don’t own a business that is subject to the federal vaccine mandate, or work for one that is, should you care about the legal fight to put a stop to it? Absolutely, for several reasons.
It’s never a good idea to let the federal government infringe on people’s personal liberties to force them to do what the government thinks is best for them. Not only does that make us less free, it often backfires. Encouraging voluntary vaccination is the best approach to foster greater participation and trust.
Additionally, if we stay quiet when the federal government exceed its constitutionally authorized power just because it doesn’t personally affect us, we have no way stop the federal government from overreaching when what it’s doing does personally affect us.
And finally, the federal vaccine mandate will affect all of us, whether or not it applies to our businesses or employers. The labor market is as tight as most businesses have ever seen it. The supply chain is riddled with delays. The last thing the economy needs is any more major disruptions, like thousands more employees quitting their jobs over incredibly intrusive medical mandates.
Gulf Coast Restaurant Group encourages its employees to get vaccinated. It even offers a $100 reward to every employee who does. While GCRG is proud of its efforts to encourage employee vaccination, it is equally proud to stand up for the rights of Mississippi businesses to operate without burdensome and unconstitutional federal regulations that prevent them from retaining their employees and adequately serving their customers. And MJI is proud to represent them in that fight.
With your continued support, we hope to keep fighting for Mississippians’ constitutional rights for many more years to come.
In Liberty,
Aaron Rice
Director, Mississippi Justice Institute
The Mississippi legislature is currently reviewing a proposal to remove the state income tax. At the same time, the state’s finances are in good shape, with a healthy emergency fund and high revenues. Meanwhile, many Mississippians are struggling from the pandemic economy, feeling the impacts of inflation, and watching the federal government continue to increase taxes and spending.
A common objection to repealing the state income tax is that the state government’s revenue and budget could be damaged. While such an argument might work seemingly well in a federal context with bloated budgets, Mississippi’s government has a fairly responsible budget that is the fruit of conservative spending policies.
To start, a key indicator state’s fiscal health is the status of it rainy day fund. In Mississippi, the state’s rainy day fund has seen exceptional growth over the last several years. In 2013, the state had $86 million in the rainy-day fund. In 2021, the rainy-day fund had $558 million. That is an increase of 640 percent in just eight years. The current funds are enough to run the entire state government for 36 days.
In addition, the state is seeing higher than expected revenue collections, which are an additional indicator of financial stability. In October 2021, the Legislative Budget Office reported a 16.42 percent increase above the general fund estimates for this fiscal year.
This brings in a key question. One of the key purposes of true fiscal responsibility is so that the people will have less burdens from excessive government debt, taxes, and spending. Yet, what use is it for the people if the government follows a responsible budget and keeps the same tax burden on the people? Sure, such policies will certainly fill the state coffers, but they leave the state’s people with less income and less freedom.
Shifting the focus from state government to the actual citizens of Mississippi, it is important to note the present need for financial relief through a smaller tax burden. Thus, while the state of Mississippi has surplus revenues that are continually growing, a recent study from Forbes found that 40 percent of individual Americans with emergency savings prior to March 2020 dipped into those savings during Covid. Seventy-three percent of those individuals used more than half of their emergency fund. Americans are in a time of financial challenge -and having to pay federal and state income taxes isn’t helping them either.
Combined with all of these state-level fiscal factors is the recent financial influence of the federal government on the state budget and individual Mississippians. The state government has received millions of dollars in federal funding to its great financial benefit. Meanwhile, citizens have had to deal with the direct effects of federal spending and inflation on their wallets and shopping carts. The state should address this discrepancy by creating a tax environment with no state income tax that adds to the burdens coming from Washington.
Looking to 2022, the state government will have a large degree of leverage as it can use federal funding for long-term projects that require large amounts of funds, such as roads and bridges. Even if all of the federal funds were only utilized for special, long-term projects and the funds played no role in the routine operations of state government, these federal funds could remove some fiscal pressure from state revenues. This removes even more pressure from the state’s own revenue funding and provides flexibility for the income tax repeal.
In light of these facts, it has become clear that now is the time to repeal the state income tax. A truly conservative government will lower taxes whenever it can responsibly do so, and it is now or never for Mississippi. If state leaders cannot execute a plan to eliminate the state income tax in 2022, a better time may never come. With state government funds in a stable position, and the citizens recovering from financial challenges, it’s time for Mississippi to “Axe the Tax.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Jackson, MS): The Mississippi Justice Institute and its client, Gulf Coast Restaurant Group, have halted the Biden administration's unconstitutional vaccine mandate for private employers.
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, on Saturday, temporarily blocked enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) mandate pending further review by the court, finding that there is "cause to believe that there are grave statutory and constitutional issues with the Mandate."
The Mississippi Justice Institute (MJI) represents Gulf Coast Restaurant Group – the corporate family of restaurants such as Half Shell Oyster House and the Rackhouse – in the litigation challenging the vaccine mandate for private employers. Gulf Coast Restaurant Group, like many other businesses, is already struggling with labor shortages and believes that the vaccine mandate will lead to further staffing reductions and harm to its business and customers.
"We are grateful that the court recognized the serious constitutional concerns raised by this mandate and has stayed its enforcement pending further review,” said MJI Director, Aaron Rice. “We will continue fighting to put a permanent stop to this unprecedented federal overreach."
"We are delighted to hear this news from the court,” said Kevin Fish, Vice President of Gulf Coast Restaurant Group. “We know that hard-working Mississippians who were worried about potentially losing their jobs can take a huge sigh of relief."
Attorney General Lynn Fitch represents the State of Mississippi in the lawsuit. "I encourage everyone to consider vaccination, but the decision is yours and the President should not force anyone to vaccinate for fear of losing their jobs, especially not on the cusp of the holidays," said Fitch. "I appreciate Gulf Coast Restaurant Group and the Mississippi Justice Institute standing with me on behalf of the 84 million American workers who will be impacted by this mandate."
This temporary stay represents a major initial victory in the challenge to the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for private employers. MJI and Gulf Coast Restaurant Group look forward to continuing the fight in court.
Please direct all media inquiries to Stone Clanton, [email protected].
Imagine if you were required to shop for groceries in a particular store because of where you happened to live? What if folk living in on zip code had to use a particular branch of Kroger’s, and not any other?
Such a system would be absurd, yet this is pretty much how the public education system is run in Mississippi – and across much of America.
Unless a family is able to afford to move to a particular zip code, or afford to go private, moms and dads have little choice over where to educate their kids. In fact, most families in America have more choice when it comes to where they buy groceries than they do over their children’s education.
Without parent power, moms and dads anxious about some of the things that their children are being taught – such as Critical Race Theory – have found themselves powerless to do much about it.
This week’s election results in Virginia suggest that this could be about to change. The Virginia contest saw conservatives unequivocally committed to school choice and parent power win state-wide contests for the first time in twelve years.
Not only does it turn out that school freedom – when properly presented – is wildly popular. It turns out that millions of ordinary Americans are not that keen on having their kids indoctrinated into believing that their country is intrinsically racists either.
The conservative movement is at a pivotal moment. We have an extraordinary opportunity to achieve fundamental change in the America education system – but if we are to seize this chance, we need to take a new approach.
For as long as anyone can remember, school choice in many states has been synonymous with Charter Schools. Here in Mississippi, for example, we have long tended to put all the school choice eggs into the Charter School basket. And it has not got us very far at all.
Paid for with public money, but run independently, Charter Schools are wonderful. They are a brilliant way of giving lots of kids opportunities that previously only rich people had. Charter schools have an extraordinary record elevating education standards and ensuring young Americans from every background get a great start in life.
The trouble is is that there just aren’t enough of them. To date, here in Mississippi there are a mere seven.
Clearly there is not a shortage of demand for Charter Schools. Those that I have visited here in Mississippi are buzzing with enthusiastic teachers, cheerful students and supportive parents. Demand for places at Charter Schools exceeds the places available.
Nor is there a shortage of people wanting to set up Charter Schools. In June this year it was announced that new applications had come in for a batch of new schools across our state.
The problem is that none of these applications got approved. When the Charter Schools Authorizer Board met recently, they failed to approve any new applications.
To be fair to the Board, too, the legislation we have in our state does not mandate the Board to incubate would-be applicants to get them over the line. But surely the Board could be a little more proactive? The Board needs a more can-do approach - and Mississippi needs a greater sense of urgency about the need for change.
Right now, anyone wanting to create a Charter School not only needs approval from the Authorizer Board. Unless they are located in a failing school district, they have to have permission from their local school board, too. Why?
How can it possibly be right to give the local education bureaucracy the power to prevent moms and dads having more choices for their kids? If your local school board really does a good job, why are they afraid of allowing families an alternative?
We would not tolerate it if companies were granted the power to ban competition and force customers to use only their services. So why are we prepared to allow school boards to do precisely this using our tax dollars?
School choice advocates need policy responses that address all of these problems. Charter schools have a critical role to play in making school choice a reality. But we also need to do more that focus on supply-side reform. We need a demand-side revolution – and Virginia suggests that the demand for real change in public education is there.
Rather than just Charter Schools, we need to advocate for a comprehensive school freedom program, including open enrolment. Most vital of all, we need to frame the debate about school freedom in a way that ensures that it resonates with millions of ordinary Americans concerned about the way in which ultra-left wing ideologues have invaded their children’s classrooms.
If we present school freedom as a way of ensuring that every American child has not just a good education, but a broad and balanced one, our movement will become unstoppable.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
(Jackson, MS): The Mississippi Justice Institute – a non-profit Constitutional litigation center and the legal arm of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy – filed suit today to challenge the Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for private employers.
The mandate, issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), requires private companies with more than 100 employees to ensure that all of their workers are either fully vaccinated by January 4th, 2022, or subject to weekly testing and mask-wearing. OSHA says "fully vaccinated" means that the employee has received two doses of Moderna or Pfizer's vaccine, or one dose of the Johnson & Johnson's vaccine. The companies are subject to fines well over $13,000 per day for each employee that does not comply.
The Mississippi Justice Institute (MJI) represents Gulf Coast Restaurant Group, a corporate family of restaurants including Half Shell Oyster House and the Rackhouse. Attorney General Lynn Fitch represents the State of Mississippi in the suit. The lawsuit was filed by a coalition of states, including Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Utah, as well as private employers in several of those states.
“The Mississippi Justice Institute is proud to represent Gulf Coast Restaurant Group, and to partner with Attorney General Lynn Fitch to challenge this extraordinary federal overreach,” said MJI Director, Aaron Rice. “While we and our client are grateful for the development of the COVID vaccines, we cannot stand by while the federal government brazenly exceeds its constitutional authority and infringes on the individual liberties of Mississippi businesses and workers.”
"While I am personally pro-vaccination, I completely disagree with this policy,” said Kevin Fish, Vice President of Gulf Coast Restaurant Group. “It is completely arbitrary. This policy will place an unfair and unreasonable burden upon my staff simply because of the number of employees I have."
In addition to turning employers into federal vaccine enforcers, the regulation will also result in many leaving the workforce entirely. This would accelerate a trend that has devastated the nation’s economic growth in the wake of pandemic.
"The federal government has no business forcing Mississippi workers to get vaccinated or forcing Mississippi businesses to fire their employees,” said Rice. “This is still a free country. In America, we have presidents, not kings."
The lawsuit was filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Please direct all media inquiries to to Stone Clanton, [email protected]