WINNING MESSAGES ON JUDGES, GUNS AND OWNING THE CONSTITUTIONS TEXT, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 1

Mark Mellman  mmellman@mellmangroup.com 1023 31st Street, NW  5th Floor  Washington, DC 20007 ph 202-625-0370  fx 202-625-0371  www.mellmangroup.com

WINNING MESSAGES

ON JUDGES, GUNS AND OWNING THE CONSTITUTION’S TEXT, HISTORY & VALUES

2 2

Key Findings

• The Public Has A Favorable Image Of The Roberts Court
• However, A Plurality See The Court Treating Corporations

More Favorably Than People

• Voters Prefer A 60-Vote Threshold For SCOTUS Nominees,

And Divide On Whether Trump’s Nominees Will Be Fair

• For Judges, The ‘Progressive’ Label Has Small, But

Meaningful, Advantages Over The ‘Liberal’ Label

• Voters Are Most Likely To Want A Supreme Court Justice

To Protect Key Rights – Though Partisans Disagree On Which Rights

Judges and the Judiciary

3 3

Key Findings

• CAC’s Framework Garners More Support Than Living

Document Arguments & Similar Progressive Language

• CAC’s Language Is Much More Effective In Winning

Public Support For Reasonable Gun Regulations

• CAC’s Language Wins The Argument About A Judicial

Role In Combating Discrimination & Inequality

• When Debating Women’s Rights, CAC’s “Text, History

And Values” Is A Stronger Theme Than Living Document

• Birthright Citizenship Is A Widely Recognized Right

Major Issues And Framing

4 4

• Focus groups of swing voters and Democrats

In Columbus, OH and Richmond, VA

• Conducted February 15 & 16, 2017
• National survey of 1,000 registered voters
• Interviews conducted Sept 19-24, 2017
• Margin of error +/- 3.1 percentage points,

larger for subgroups

Methodology

5 5

The Roberts Court Improved Its Public Image, As Republicans Became More Favorable

6 6 47% 55% 34% 24%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Favorable Unfavorable

+31

Fav ‘14 Fav ‘17 Chg Lib Democrat

52% 52% =

Mod/Cons Democrat

50% 50% +1

Independent

45% 54% +9

Republican

45% 60% +15

Male

46% 54% +9

Female

49% 56% +7

18-39

48% 50% +2

40-59

49% 58% +9

60+

45% 56% +12

HS or less

43% 46% +3

Some College

41% 52% +10

Coll Grad +

54% 63% +9

White Coll

54% 62% +8

White Non-Coll Men

42% 53% +11

White Non-Coll Women

38% 56% +18

Black

48% 35%

• 12

Hispanic

57% 58% +1

+13

The Court Is Viewed More Favorably Than In 2014

The Shift Is Concentrated Among Republicans And Whites, Though The Image Of The Court Hasn’t Worsened Among Democrats

4/14 9/17 Supreme Court Favorability

7 7

Pos ‘14 Pos ‘17 Chg Liberal Democrat

34% 33%

• 1

Mod/Cons Democrat

43% 36%

• 7

Independent

27% 32% +5

Republican

35% 40% +5

Male

29% 34% +5

Female

37% 37% =

18-39

34% 31%

• 3

40-59

35% 39% +3

60+

30% 36% +7

HS or less

32% 31%

• 1

Some College

34% 29%

• 4

Coll Grad +

34% 42% +8

White Coll

35% 45% +10

White Non-Coll Men

27% 36% +9

White Non-Coll Women

37% 34%

• 3

Black

35% 19%

• 17

Hispanic

35% 28%

• 7

Though The Court’s Performance Ratings Remain Negative, They Too Improved

33% 36% 60% 53%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Positive Negative

• 17
• 27

4/14 9/17 Supreme Court Job Performance

8 8

A Plurality See The Court Treating Corporations More Favorably Than People

9 9

Do you think the U.S. Supreme Court treats corporations more favorably than people like you, does the Supreme Court treat corporations less favorably than people like you, or do you believe it treats corporations and people like you about equally?

Nearly A Majority Say The Supreme Court Treats Corporations More Favorably Than Individuals

49% 34% 7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

More Equal Less

Corps More Favorably Corps Less Favorably Liberal Democrat

63% 6%

Mod/Cons Democrat

57% 10%

Independent

49% 9%

Republican

37% 7%

Male

52% 6%

Female

47% 9%

18-39

52% 9%

40-59

50% 5%

60+

46% 8%

HS or less

44% 9%

Some College

53% 7%

Coll Grad +

49% 7%

White Coll

47% 7%

White Non-Coll Men

52% 6%

White Non-Coll Women

44% 9%

Black

51% 10%

Hispanic

58% 11%

10 10

“Progressive” Continues To Have Small, But Meaningful, Advantages Over “Liberal”

11 11

46% 42% 48% 37% 29% 29%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Right Wrong

+9 +13 Liberal Judges Progressive Judges Conservative Judges +19

When it comes to constitutional issues*, do you think _____ judges generally make the right decisions or the wrong decisions?

Italics = split-sampled

Judges Of All Ideological Stripes Tend To Be Seen As More Often Right Than Wrong

12 12

46% 42% 48% 37% 29% 29%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Right Wrong

+9 +13

Liberal Judges Progressive Judges Conservative Judges

+19 When it comes to constitutional issues*, do you think _____ judges generally make the right decisions or the wrong decisions?

*phrase added in 2017 Italics = split-sampled Net Right Decisions

Lib Prog Cons

Liberal Democrat

+81 +57

• 34

Mod/Cons Democrat

+24 +21 +19

Independent

+1 +8 +15

Republican

• 50
• 21

+63

Male

+3 +6 +22

Female

+14 +19 +16

18-39

+16 +29 +6

40-59

+5 +4 +23

60+

+5 +6 +26

HS or less

• 16

+5 +30

Some College

+12 +4 +19

Coll Grad +

+18 +23 +13

White Coll

+17 +19 +18

White Non-Coll Men

• 23
• 21

+39

White Non-Coll Women

+3 +9 +30

Black

+42 +19

• 10

Hispanic

+26 +35 =

April 2014: 44% Right, 35% Wrong April 2014: 47% Right, 27% Wrong April 2014: 49% Right, 28% Wrong

The Progressive Label Is A Bit More Trusted Than Liberal, But Both Are Weaker Than Conservative

Only Liberal Democrats Are Hostile To Conservative Judges

13 13

41% 46% 42% 40%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Voters Are More Likely To Trust A Progressive President Than A Liberal President To Nominate Justices

Independents & Moderates/Conservative Democrats Find Progressives More Congenial

Generally speaking, who would you trust more to nominate individuals to the Supreme Court - a conservative president or a progressive/liberal president?

Italics = split-sampled

+1

• 6

Progressive Liberal

Net Trust Net Prog Net Lib Liberal Democrat

+67 +79

Mod/Cons Democrat

+20 +2

Independent

+12

• 20

Republican

• 65
• 68

Male

+2

• 11

Female

=

• 2

18-39

+23 +11

40-59

• 7
• 16

60+

• 11
• 13

HS or less

• 24
• 34

Some College

+6 =

Coll Grad +

+10

• 1

White Coll

+6

• 8

White Non-Coll Men

• 36
• 35

White Non-Coll Women

• 7
• 17

Black

+42 +35

Hispanic

+29 +33

Conservative Conservative Progressive Liberal

14 14

Voters Are Most Likely To Want A Supreme Court Justice To Protect Key Rights – Though Partisans Disagree On Which Rights

15 15

39% 39% 38% 38% 36% 33% 33% 30% 29% 28% 25% 25% 24% 23% 23% 23% 19% 18% 16% 16%

90% 89% 87% 80% 87% 85% 81% 84% 78% 66% 75% 78% 71% 70% 71% 73% 63% 62% 45% 61%

Protects civil rights Protects equal rights Prevents racial discrimination Will protect the country from terrorism Protects free speech rights Protects due process rights Will stand up to the President when necessary Protects women's rights Won't bend the law to protect big business Protects our individual right to bear arms Tough on crime Cares about people like you Protects freedom of the press Respects states' rights Puts individual rights ahead of corporations Protects the middle class Independent Shares your values Focusing on cracking down on immigrants who are in US illegally Represents your point of view on the issues

Civil Rights, Equal Rights, Racial Discrimination, Terrorism And Free Speech Are Most Important When Evaluating A Supreme Court Justice

% One of Most

Qualities of Justices

(ranked by % one of most impt) + % Very

Italics = split-sampled

16 16

Democrats Prioritize Civil Rights, Equal Rights & Racial Discrimination, While Republicans Focus On Terrorism, Guns, Crime & Free Speech

Independents Are Less Passionate, Though Civil Rights, Equal Rights, Speech And Due Process Top Their Lists

SC Justice Descriptions

ranked by % one of the most impt. Total Lib Dem Mod/Cons Dem Indep Rep

Protects civil rights

39% 51% 48% 37% 29%

Protects equal rights

39% 51% 44% 36% 32%

Prevents racial discrimination

38% 51% 49% 33% 26%

Will protect the country from terrorism

38% 32% 37% 32% 49%

Protects free speech rights

36% 37% 47% 36% 34%

Protects due process rights

33% 35% 39% 36% 31%

Will stand up to the President when necessary

33% 48% 39% 28% 22%

Protects women's rights

30% 40% 43% 24% 21%

Won't bend the law to protect big business

29% 33% 39% 26% 27%

Protects our individual right to bear arms

28% 17% 19% 24% 47%

Tough on crime

25% 15% 32% 21% 34%

17 17

SC Justice Descriptions

ranked by % one of the most impt. Total Black Hisp.

Protects civil rights

39% 39% 46%

Protects equal rights

39% 39% 52%

Prevents racial discrimination

38% 51% 52%

Will protect the country from terrorism

38% 36% 47%

Protects free speech rights

36% 35% 38%

Protects due process rights

33% 32% 40%

Will stand up to the President when necessary

33% 37% 38%

Protects women's rights

30% 35% 37%

Won't bend the law to protect big business

29% 29% 29%

Protects our individual right to bear arms

28% 23% 24%

Tough on crime

25% 22% 18%

Racial Discrimination Is A Top Focus Of Hispanics And African-Americans

18 18

SC Justice Descriptions

ranked by % one of the most impt. Total White Coll White Non- Coll

Protects civil rights

39% 39% 40%

Protects equal rights

39% 39% 36%

Prevents racial discrimination

38% 34% 34%

Will protect the country from terrorism

38% 30% 42%

Protects free speech rights

36% 34% 37%

Protects due process rights

33% 32% 32%

Will stand up to the President when necessary

33% 36% 29%

Protects women's rights

30% 27% 31%

Won't bend the law to protect big business

29% 32% 29%

Protects our individual right to bear arms

28% 23% 33%

Tough on crime

25% 23% 29%

While Non-College Whites Focus On Terrorism, College Whites Have More Mixed Priorities Including Standing Up To The President

19 19

SC Justice Descriptions

ranked by % one of the most impt. Total White Coll Men White Coll Women

Protects civil rights

39% 44% 35%

Protects equal rights

39% 41% 37%

Prevents racial discrimination

38% 37% 31%

Will protect the country from terrorism

38% 31% 29%

Protects free speech rights

36% 41% 29%

Protects due process rights

33% 39% 26%

Will stand up to the President when necessary

33% 39% 33%

Protects women's rights

30% 32% 23%

Won't bend the law to protect big business

29% 37% 28%

Protects our individual right to bear arms

28% 28% 19%

Tough on crime

25% 23% 23%

Among College Whites, Women Rank Equal Rights At The Top, While Men Place Additional Emphasis On Free Speech & Due Process

20 20

Voters Prefer 60-Vote Threshold For SCOTUS Nominees And Are Divided On Whether Trump’s SCOTUS Nominees Will Be Fair

21 21

33% 61%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Which comes closer to your point of view:

51 Senators 60 Senators

Most Think Supreme Court Nominations Should Require 60 Senate Votes For Confirmation

Even 4 Out Of 10 Republicans Want 60 Votes

On something as important as a lifetime nomination to the Supreme Court, a nominee should have to get the support of at least 60 of the 100 Senators. When the President nominates a Justice to the Supreme Court, it should only take the votes of 51

• f the 100 Senators to confirm the nominee and make them a SC Justice.

51 Senators 60 Senators Liberal Democrat

11% 84%

Mod/Cons Democrat

24% 67%

Independent

34% 62%

Republican

55% 40%

Male

39% 56%

Female

29% 65%

18-39

30% 64%

40-59

36% 59%

60+

34% 60%

HS or less

38% 53%

Some College

32% 63%

Coll Grad +

33% 63%

White Coll

35% 61%

White Non-Coll Men

47% 47%

White Non-Coll Women

31% 62%

Black

22% 77%

Hispanic

29% 63%

22 22

31% 16% 10% 41%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Great Deal Some Not Too Much Not At All

How much do you trust President Trump to nominate someone to the Supreme Court who would be fair to all Americans, regardless of race, gender, or wealth?

Opinions On The Fairness Of Trump’s Supreme Court Nominees Divide Along Partisan Lines

Total Trust Total Do Not Trust Liberal Democrat

7% 92%

Mod/Cons Democrat

20% 79%

Independent

45% 51%

Republican

90% 9%

Male

51% 47%

Female

44% 55%

18-39

38% 60%

40-59

51% 47%

60+

51% 47%

HS or less

61% 38%

Some College

44% 53%

Coll Grad +

43% 56%

White Coll

47% 53%

White Non-Coll Men

68% 28%

White Non-Coll Women

57% 42%

Black

17% 81%

Hispanic

25% 73%

47%

great deal/some

51%

not too much/not at all

23 23

CAC’s Constitutional Framework Garners More Support Than Living Document Language And Other Default Progressive Positions

24 24

Interprets the Constitution taking into account its text, history, and values Interprets the Constitution taking into account its text and history Interprets Constitution in the context of today's issues + challenges Interprets Constitution according to original meaning of text as written

The Largest Number Want Justices To Take Into Account The Constitution’s “Text, History, And Values,” While Fewer Want Originalists

% One of Most

Qualities of Justices

(ranked by % one of most + very) + % Very

Italics = split-sampled

24% 23% 22% 25% 75% 69% 68% 63%

25 25

Everyone Heard This Conservative Position On The Constitution

CONSERVATIVE ARGUMENT: Judges have a responsibility to interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning as it was written, not as they wish it were

• written. When judges apply their own beliefs in their rulings instead of strictly following

the Constitution’s words, they go beyond their authority, usurping powers that are granted to Congress and the President by the Constitution. CAC ARGUMENT: Judges have a responsibility to apply the text and history of the whole Constitution to modern challenges. Our Constitution was amended 27 times—outlawing slavery, promising equality for all, and giving African Americans and women the right to

• vote. Our founders created a constitutional system designed to adapt to changes in society,

while also enshrining enduring values. LIVING DOCUMENT ARGUMENT: We have a living Constitution that evolves, changes and adapts to new circumstances. Its exact words are not as important as the general ideas it represents. Judges are entrusted with the ultimate responsibility of interpreting the Constitution for modern times and they have a responsibility to go beyond the Constitution’s text when necessary to reflect our current values.

And Heard One Of These Two Progressive Constitutional Positions

26 26

The CAC Approach Is Far More Effective, While The Living Document Statement Is Less Appealing Than Originalism

CAC Is More Effective Among Liberal Dems, The Middle, And Even Republicans

Which of the following statements comes closer to your point of view?

• Conservative Argument
• Living Document Argument
• CAC Argument

39% 54% 55% 39%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

• 16

+15

Living Document CAC Liv Doc Conservative CAC Conservative

Net Liv Doc Net CAC Liberal Democrat

+41 +60

Mod/Cons Democrat

+9 +14

Independent

• 14

+15

Republican

• 70
• 21

Male

• 25

+2

Female

• 8

+26

18-39

• 4

+34

40-59

• 23

+9

60+

• 20

+4

HS or less

• 25

+6

Some College

• 25

+10

Coll Grad +

• 5

+23

White Coll

• 16

+17

White Non-Coll Men

• 55
• 24

White Non-Coll Women

• 8

+12

Black

+14 +37

Hispanic

• 11

+29

27 27

The CAC Approach Is Much More Effective In Winning Public Support For Gun Safety Regulations

28 28

9% 72% 83% 18%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Overwhelmingly And Across Partisanship, Voters Believe The Constitution Allows Gun Safety Laws, But Not A Ban

Do you believe the Constitution allows the government to ban the private ownership of all guns in America? Do you believe the Constitution allows the government to make and apply strict laws that prevent dangerous people from buying or possessing guns in America? Yes No Yes No

29 29

Everyone Heard This Argument Against Gun Safety Laws

CONSERVATIVE ARGUMENT: The Second Amendment says, quote, “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed” unquote. Gun laws are a slippery slope to the government taking our guns away, and only denying that constitutional right to law-abiding American citizens. The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The Founding Fathers did not want the government telling us what kinds of guns we can have, how many we can buy, or where we can carry them.

OUTDATED AMENDMENT: The Second Amendment was written when people carried muskets that fired one bullet at a time. It protects a collective right of states to form militias. It does not say an individual has the personal right to carry whichever guns they want. The Founding Fathers never intended for us to be able to have weapons of mass murder. It is 2017, not 1791. Government must be able to pass and enforce laws to protect the public from guns. CAC ARGUMENT: The Constitution protects the right to own a gun for self-defense. But the Constitution does not grant every person the right to have any gun they want, any time they want, anywhere they want. The drafters of the 2nd Amendment understood that this right could be regulated. Government must respect our constitutional rights, but it must also pass and enforce sensible regulations that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, including felons, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill.

And Heard One Of These Two Arguments In Favor Of Gun Safety Laws

30 30

The CAC Approach Wins The Argument On Guns Convincingly, While The Outdated Message Loses

CAC’s Message Neutralizes GOP Opposition And Wins Over The Middle

Which of the following statements comes closer to your point of view? [2ND AMENDMENT:]

• Conservative Argument
• CAC Argument
• Outdated Amendment

60% 40% 34% 52%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

+26

• 12

CAC Argument Outdated Amendment CAC Conservative Outdated Conservative

Net CAC Net Outdated Liberal Democrat

+64 +44

Mod/Cons Democrat

+43 +6

Independent

+13

• 7

Republican

• 2
• 65

Male

+10

• 17

Female

+39

• 7

18-39

+25 +4

40-59

+30

• 19

60+

+21

• 18

HS or less

+13

• 43

Some College

+29

• 11

Coll Grad +

+28 +1

White Coll

+24

• 7

White Non-Coll Men

• 10
• 55

White Non-Coll Women

+38

• 17

Black

+52 +21

Hispanic

+42 +24

31 31

Text, History And Values Is A Stronger Theme Than Living Document When Debating Women’s Rights

32 32

Everyone Heard This Argument Against A Judicial Role In Women’s Rights

CONSERVATIVE ARGUMENT: Judges have a responsibility to interpret the Constitution according to the original meaning of the text as written. The Constitution doesn’t say anything about women’s rights to an abortion or getting equal pay, but instead gives Congress and the states the power to write these laws. Judges should not be legislating women’s rights from the bench. These issues should be resolved through the political process, not by judges interpreting the Constitution based on what they would like it to say.

LIVING DOCUMENT ARGUMENT: The Constitution is a living document that adapts to our changing world. When judges or lawmakers try to limit what women can do with their bodies or deny them equal pay for equal work, they are denying women their constitutional rights. Judges and legislators should recognize it isn’t 1789 anymore. Even if there isn’t a specific place in the Constitution that protects women’s rights, judges should do what’s right and apply the law based

• n a general belief in women’s equality.

CAC ARGUMENT: Judges and legislators have a responsibility to uphold women’s rights under the Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of the law for both women and men. When women don’t earn equal pay, when women are denied the right to control their own bodies, or when women face discrimination in the workplace, their fundamental rights to liberty and equality are violated. It isn’t 1789 anymore. Women are equal and judges must recognize that the Constitution has been amended to ensure women’s equal citizenship.

And Heard One Of These Two Arguments In Favor Of A Judicial Role In Women’s Rights

33 33

Net CAC Net Liv Doc Liberal Democrat

+62 +72

Mod/Cons Democrat

+47 +34

Independent

+40 +14

Republican

• 7
• 28

Male

+30 +7

Female

+32 +28

18-39

+44 +21

40-59

+22 +11

60+

+27 +23

HS or less

+36 +14

Some College

+25 +16

Coll Grad +

+32 +21

White Coll

+30 +19

White Non-Coll Men

+8

• 6

White Non-Coll Women

+29 +20

Black

+48 +28

Hispanic

+42 +59

The CAC Argument Elicits Stronger Support Than The Living Document Approach

This Is Particularly True Among Independents, Men, Younger & Less Educated Voters

Which of the following statements comes closer to your point of view? [JUDICIAL ROLE ON WOMEN’S RIGHTS:]

• Conservative Argument
• CAC Argument
• Living Document Argument

62% 54% 31% 36%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

+31 +18

CAC Living Document CAC Conservative Liv Doc Conservative

34 34

CAC Language Wins The Overall Argument About A Judicial Role In Combating Discrimination & Inequality

35 35

41% 53%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Original Meaning Stop Discrimination

+12

33% Strongly Statement A. Judges should not overreach to try to solve social issues from the bench, but rather allow Congress and the President to address them. If judges apply the original meaning of the Constitution as written, instead of inserting their own personal beliefs, everyone’s rights will be protected equally. Our country creates a level playing field for all. Statement B. Equality is still not a reality in America. Discrimination based on race, religion, gender, and economic circumstances remains widespread in workplaces, schools and courtrooms. If judges apply the text, history, and values of our Constitution – including Amendments that guarantee equality for everyone – then the rights of more Americans will be protected as we strive to build a “more perfect Union.”

On Balance, Voters Want Judges To Intervene To Correct Discrimination

Republicans & Voters Without College Degrees Oppose Judges Solving Social Problems

43% Strongly

Original Stop Disc. Liberal Democrat

18% 78%

Mod/Cons Democrat

36% 58%

Independent

38% 53%

Republican

63% 30%

Male

45% 49%

Female

37% 55%

18-39

31% 61%

40-59

44% 50%

60+

46% 47%

HS or less

51% 41%

Some College

40% 54%

Coll Grad +

37% 56%

White Coll

42% 54%

White Non-Coll Men

56% 38%

White Non-Coll Women

42% 50%

Black

26% 68%

Hispanic

26% 64%

36 36

Birthright Citizenship Is A Widely Recognized Right

37 37

75% 20%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

As you may know, currently, if someone is born in the United States, they are a citizen

• f the United States, regardless of whether their parents are citizens. This is called

birthright citizenship. Do you favor or oppose birthright citizenship? Favor Oppose 62% strong 13% strong

+55

There Is Very Strong Baseline Support For Birthright Citizenship, Extending Across Almost All Subgroups

Favor Oppose Liberal Democrat

91% 6%

Mod/Cons Democrat

84% 10%

Independent

76% 20%

Republican

57% 36%

Male

72% 24%

Female

77% 18%

18-39

77% 19%

40-59

75% 18%

60+

73% 24%

HS or less

67% 26%

Some College

77% 19%

Coll Grad +

76% 19%

White Coll

73% 22%

White Non-Coll Men

63% 32%

White Non-Coll Women

74% 22%

Black

85% 10%

Hispanic

91% 6%

38 38

Everyone Heard This Argument Against Birthright Citizenship

Opponents of birthright citizenship say the Supreme Court wrongly created a loophole giving anchor babies citizenship merely because they were born on U.S. soil. They say the Constitution confers citizenship only on children whose parents not only are here, but also give their complete allegiance to the United States, and that does not apply to the children of illegal immigrants, who owe their allegiance to foreign countries. Citizenship should not be a reward for illegal behavior. Judges should fix their mistake instead of giving a windfall to children of illegal immigrants. CAC ARGUMENT: Supporters of birthright citizenship say that at the heart of the text of the 14th Amendment and the Declaration of Independence, is the fundamental guarantee that all people are born

• equal. People born in the United States are equal citizens regardless of whether their forefathers arrived
• n the Mayflower, a slave ship, or on an airplane. A baby, who has committed no crime, should not be

denied a constitutional right. Everyone born here has the constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity to make a good life for themselves. Denying birthright citizenship to those born on U.S. soil violates America’s basic constitutional values. ISSUE ARGUMENT ONLY: Supporters of birthright citizenship say that, from our founding, America has been a nation of immigrants. Birthright citizenship defines who we are as a nation. It means American citizenship is not determined by skin color, ethnicity or religion, but only by whether a person was born in the United States. It means a baby, who committed no crime, is not denied a constitutional right. It rejects the notion that America is a country club led by elites who get to pick and choose who can become

• members. Limiting birthright citizenship would strike at the heart of America’s values.

And Heard One Of These Arguments In Favor

39 39

The CAC Argument Does Somewhat Better At Maintaining Strong Support For Birthright Citizenship

It Even Wins Over Republicans

Which of the following statements comes closer to your point of view? [BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP:]

• Conservative Argument
• Issue Argument Only
• CAC Argument

63% 66% 29% 27%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

+34 +39

Issue Argument Only CAC Issue Arg Conservative CAC Conservative

Net Issue Arg Net CAC Liberal Democrat

+74 +80

Mod/Cons Democrat

+70 +61

Independent

+35 +26

Republican

• 9

+8

Male

+34 +36

Female

+35 +41

18-39

+43 +44

40-59

+44 +35

60+

+17 +38

HS or less

+20 +28

Some College

+38 +43

Coll Grad +

+39 +40

White Coll

+32 +33

White Non-Coll Men

+8 +23

White Non-Coll Women

+22 +27

Black

+69 +62

Hispanic

+68 +71

40 40

Strategic Conclusions

• The Roberts Court is in a better place than it was three years

ago, with its image improving among Republicans and independents, while not deteriorating among Democrats

• Though improved, the Court’s performance ratings are still

low

• We can win an argument about requiring 60 votes to confirm a

Supreme Court Justice

• Americans want the Court to protect our rights, but they differ
• n which rights they prioritize
• A plurality think the Court treats corporations more favorably

than individuals

• Voters tend to trust judges of all partisan stripes

41 41

Strategic Conclusions

• The “progressive” label continues to have a small but

meaningful advantage over the “liberal” label

• The CAC messages are stronger than the living document or

standard progressive approach both overall and on key issues like guns, women’s rights, and discrimination

• CAC’s framework gives liberals and progressives a

“Constitution bump” by rooting their arguments in the Constitution's text, history & values, a stronger approach

• CAC’s framework is less overtly partisan, helping win over the

middle without alienating the progressive base

42 42

Strategic Conclusions

• CAC’s messages seem to be more powerful because they both:

Engage on the substance of the issue AND Lay claim to the underlying constitutional principles & values

43 43

44 44

• Right to bear arms, for example. If I want a gun, I’m going for the right to bear arms. If I

don’t want a gun, oh, that’s not exactly what it says. I read it like this. Freedom of speech, I want to say this, and I want to do this, and I want to act this way, because that’s my belief, but this person doesn’t, and now they’re offended by my belief, so it benefits a certain person’s need. It’s so broad and so open. – F Swing, Columbus

• You can see that [different interpretations] in the Supreme Court, especially with big
• decisions. When you have such a big argument going on, you can see that there’s always

two or three swing voters in the Supreme Court, otherwise you have four or five that will just always vote the way that they do, and obviously that’s from personal conviction or else they wouldn’t always vote that way… - M Swing, Columbus

Because The Constitution Is Used As Justification By Both Sides, Voters Aren’t Sure It Has An Objective Meaning

• I think it [different interpretations] depends completely on your point of view. I think

everybody feels their point of view is right. - F Swing, Richmond

• A conservative might be more likely to say that a right to privacy—nothing is said

about a right to privacy in the Constitution, so therefore there is no right to privacy. Whereas a liberal might be more likely to say, “Privacy wasn’t an issue 200 years ago, but it is today, and the Constitution can be read to protect privacy rights.” – M Dem, Richmond

45 45

They Do See The Constitution As An Important Document, Central To Our Democracy With Core Freedoms & Rights

• Without the Constitution, basically politicians could choose whatever rights we have and

what we don’t have, so it’s a fundamental building block to politics today. Without the Constitution, we wouldn’t have our basic human rights. – M Swing, Columbus

• To protect our rights as people and to protect the country as a whole, the democratic
• process. – F Swing, Columbus
• To me, it’s not just a framework, legal framework. It’s also about our culture, our ideals. I

think it is about what the framers thought of as what is American republic democracy, you know? And so I think that’s where we get to the great points. What do we determine as our inalienable rights? – M Dem, Columbus

• It’s the framework that makes our country a democracy and without that we’d be a North

Korea or we’d be a Russia or we’d be one of many countries that I don’t think any of us in here probably want to be. So without the Constitution we wouldn’t be the nation that we are and have the rights and freedoms that we do. – F Swing, Richmond

• It’s the main governing document of our government. It’s the thing that basically tells us

what the laws were when they were set down and what our Supreme Court uses to determine what is right for the laws that are in our country. – F Dem, Richmond

46 46

The Terms Don’t Convey What We Think They Do

• “Originalism” meant very little
• It’s kind of a hard thing to nail down if you want to nail down to that one word original. –

M Swing, Richmond

• I’m sort of clueless about that particular term. – M Swing, Richmond
• Upholding the original ideas of the Constitution or looking at the origination of the law. – F

Dem, Columbus

• “Text and history” was most often interpreted as what might be seen as originalism
• It was just maybe an attempt at trying to find a euphemism, a nicer way of saying
• riginalism. – M Dem, Columbus
• I thought more of a literal look at the document. The document says this, that’s what the

document means. (…) You use history to either back up that literal and prevents the correction of historical mistakes. It’s more like we’re going to go forward, this is what it says and we’re not going to change it. – M Swing, Richmond

• “Living document” was the exception, conveying its meaning
• That the Constitution is able to and should be changed as the country and its citizens

mature and grow. – F Dem, Columbus

• I interpret as the judge understands that American society is constantly evolving and the

document has to maintain a certain amount of fluidity in order to be able to be interpreted and re-interpreted, because the original interpretations aren’t always applicable to the current societal landscape. – F Dem, Richmond

47 47

• Basically, you know, the way the Constitution and “laws” have been set up, everybody’s

supposed to be protected, but they’re not, because philosophically it’s the right thing to say, but whether it’s being implemented on a consistent basis is questionable. – M Dem, Columbus

• That the Constitution protects equal citizenship for men and women (…) And then where

they’re not treated as equal citizens, their Constitution rights are being violated and the courts or Congress should step up and act on their behalf. – M Swing, Richmond

• (…) The intent of the Constitution, of the amendments, the 14th Amendment, is there, and

in society if we’re producing laws or judgments that are not living up to that ideal, that is the role of the judicial to say that’s not appropriate, and then it goes back to the legislature to change or amend. – M Dem, Columbus

• (…) If you’re one of those people who are like, “This is the law. This is what it says.”

Then you’re like, “Hey, I’m a rich white man; it applies to me. Sorry black guys.” But if you’re one of the people who look at it as a living document and you see that times are changing then you’re like, “Hey, this isn’t constitutional.” If you’re working at Job A, you need to get paid for Job A, not you’re working Job A, but I’m going to pay you an extra $15 million dollars under the table. – M Dem, Richmond

Using The Courts To Address Inequality Is Supported, Importantly Because Equality Is A Value Voters Believe Is In The Constitution

48 48

People Believe The Constitution Grants Birthright Citizenship And Are Supportive Of It

• We are a country founded on that ideal, and e pluribus unum, out of many, one. So

have all these people, whether your background is that you came over here on the

• Mayflower. Maybe you were Native-American. Maybe you were a slave. Maybe

you’re just now coming into this country, but we’re all one today. – M Dem, Columbus

• Obviously, if they’re coming here illegally or crossing the border, or they’re afraid
• r whatever, I feel like we were founded on people who came here illegally and

were in fear of their lives and were in search of a better life, so B’s (the anti- birthright citizenship statement) kind of gross. – F Dem, Columbus

• Are there problems? Absolutely. Of course, there are, and there are bad apples, but I

don’t think you should throw out the ideal of the American dream. I don’t like writing laws to cover—just like in business, I don’t like making rules to cover the 3 percent of bad apples and harming the 97 percent of the people that mean well. – M Swing, Columbus

• All persons born are naturalized in the United States, regardless of your parents’
• background. – M Swing, Columbus
• If you’re born here, you’re American. – M Dem, Richmond