A new poll concludes that nearly half of Republican voters would be less likely to re-elect a politician who votes for immigration reform.
There has been a careful dance on the Senate side of Congress. A bipartisan group of lawmakers crafted a bill, then crafted a compromise with Republican colleagues to include tougher border security measures. That "border surge" measure guaranteed enough GOP votes to get past the 60 vote filibuster line.
But will there be payback on election day for Senators who vote for immigration?
According to a new United Technologies/National Journal poll, the answer is "yes."
The poll asked registered voters whether in the next election they'd be more or less likely to support a Senator or Representative who votes for an immigration reform bill that included a path to citizenship.
Among Democrats, just one in five said it would make them less likely to vote to re-elect that lawmaker. Nearly half said it made no difference one way or the other.
Advocates rally for immigration reform outside the US Capitol this spring
UPDATE 4:11 p.m.: Historic immigration legislation cleared a key Senate hurdle Monday afternoon with a 67-to-27 procedural vote in favor of the "border amendment" seen as key to gaining Republican support for the bill.
The final tally was seven more than the 60 needed, with 15 Republicans voting to advance the legislation.
PREVIOUSLY: The U.S. Senate is poised to vote on a tough border security amendment to the immigration bill Monday evening. The measure is designed to entice Republicans to vote in favor of the larger immigration reform proposal. Business and labor groups are also putting pressure on Senators ahead of that vote, which is expected on Thursday.
Momentum is growing for passage of the comprehensive bill.
Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina – one of the "Gang of Eight" who negotiated immigration reform – says the measure is "on the verge" of getting 70 votes, thanks to the enhanced security amendment.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Laird Monahan walks up the steps of the Lincoln Memorial past a giant banner printed with the Preamble to the United States Constitution during a demonstration against the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling in 2010 in Washington, DC.
How do you feel about publicly funded elections? You know, that box you can check on your income tax forms to dedicate a few bucks to presidential campaigns.
A new poll shows that half of Americans prefer government funded to individual and political action committee funded campaigns.
Gallup asked people:
"Suppose that on Election Day you could vote on key issues as well as candidates. Would you vote for or against a law that would establish a new campaign finance system where federal campaigns are funded by the government and all contributions from individuals and private groups are banned?"
One in two said they'd vote for that. Just 44 percent said they'd vote against it. Women were split: 46 percent say they favor it; 46 percent don't like it. The rest were undecided.
A new Los Angeles Times profile calls Maria Elena Durazo one of the most influential political figures in Los Angeles.
Good morning, readers. Welcome to the Maven's Morning Coffee -- a listing of the important headlines, news conferences, votes and announcements you need to know to fuel up and tackle your day.
The Maven's Morning Coffee is also available as a daily email. Click here to subscribe.
Today is Monday, June 24, and here is what's happening in Southern California politics:
The Los Angeles Times does a deep dive on Maria Elena Durazo, who is described as "probably the single most influential individual in Los Angeles politics."
The Sacramento Bee's Dan Walters editorializes on corruption in Los Angeles County. "We should not be depending on the FBI to root out corruption. If it's endemic – in L.A. or elsewhere – state and local authorities should be attacking it vigorously," he writes.
David Scott/The Scott Family and Little Landers Historical Society
A stylized aerial view of the Tuna Canyon Detention Station. More than 1,000 people of Japanese descent were held here before being transferred to longer-stay camps further inland or out-of-state.
At least one acre of the former Tuna Canyon Detention Station that is now the site of the Verdugo Hills Golf Course is expected to be designated a historic-cultural monument by the Los Angeles City Council on Tuesday.
During World War II, the detention center held more than 2,000 people, mostly Japanese-Americans. The golf course is now owned by Snowball West Investments, which wants to build a housing subdivision on the property. Designating something a historic-cultural monument means there are additional reviews if changes are made to the site.
“We need to commemorate the sacrifices, the pain of our forefathers, the men and women who went through such a devastating experience,” Councilman Ed Reyes, chair of the Planning and Land Use Management Committee, said last week.
City staff initially denied the designation, arguing that the site no longer has any of the original structures. But Councilman Richard Alarcon, who represents the area, noted the city already has 19 historic-cultural monuments without buildings.