If anyone’s enjoying the wild ride of this election cycle, it’s the two dozen states voting after Super Tuesday. At this point in most presidential primaries, the nominee is a foregone conclusion, giving Americans in these later primary states very little in the way of influence or motivation. In 2016, states like Utah and Arizona, as we saw [Tuesday], are finally getting a say in a process that is normally dominated by voters in February and early March.

The results from [Tuesday] night make it clear that the GOP is no closer to a nominee, as Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Donald Trump continued their pattern of splitting delegates. Donald ended up with 18 more, thanks to the vivid imagination of Governor John Kasich (R-Ohio), who continues to argue that his campaign (which would need more than 100 percent of the remaining delegates) has a chance. (That argument will be even harder to make after [Tuesday], when he failed to win a single delegate.)

And while Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) may not be in the race, his presence is painfully felt through the tens of thousands of early votes cast before his exit. As people like Daniel Horowitz point out, “Rubio’s ghost” is still eating into a share of the electorate that would almost certainly go to Cruz. “Early voting is ridiculous and should be abolished,” he argued. “Rubio won 18 percent of early voting in [Arizona’s Maricopa County, and together with other candidates, won roughly 18 percent statewide. Voting in the state not only began before Rubio dropped out, but before the Florida Senator’s presidential campaign collapsed. While Trump’s performance was definitely strong, especially for a closed primary state… the fact that early voting had incorrigibly split the anti-Trump vote made it such that Cruz never fully competed in the state.”

In Utah, Cruz blew out the competition with a 71 percent performance that far exceeded the winner-take-all threshold and allowed him to mop up all 40 delegates. Trump, meanwhile, barely registered in one of the most conservative states on the map, clocking in at 14 percent. With the hotly contested states of North Dakota, Wisconsin, and Colorado on the horizon, this race is far from over. In fact, with most of the early voting baggage in the rearview mirror, it’s increasingly looking like the GOP nominee will be decided in Cleveland. While Kasich continues to be Trump’s best defense against Cruz, his selfish delusion continues to be blasted by Americans who respect the process. “The campaign of John Kasich is a joke, and not a particularly funny one, unless you like humor at the expense of the GOP and conservatism…” writes NRO’s Jeremy Carl. “[W]ith his embarrassing losses in Utah and Arizona Tuesday, it is long past time to throw Kasich’s campaign into the ash heap of history.”

In the meantime, the Christian Post is shedding some light on the greatest mystery of 2016: the puzzling “evangelical” backing of Donald Trump. Pew Research is the latest to take a statistical stab at Christians’ supposed support for a man who has stood for, funded and advocated for policies and choices that are antithetical to a true evangelical worldview. Like The Barna Group, Pew found that a majority of these voters aren’t evangelicals at all — but men and women whose faith is not necessarily a defining characteristic of their life, let alone their politics. According to data the group gathered in 2014, 39 percent of these self-identified “evangelical” voters in the GOP don’t believe the Bible is the literal Word of God.

In its report, Pew explained that religious leaders were frustrated with the nature of the question usually asked by exit pollsters: “Would you describe yourself as a born-again or evangelical Christian?” “They argue that this question may be too broad to accurately capture who really is and isn’t an evangelical Protestant.” Even the Washington Post is calling on the polling community to redefine the terms. It’s time, argues Brian Kaylor, to “offer a more detailed, nuanced and accurate look at voters and the roles religion may play in voting preferences.” When you look at regular churchgoers, the vast majority (56 percent) break for Ted Cruz.

Originally published here.

SCOTUS Arguments Second to Nun

Despite three other trips, Obamacare made an encore appearance at the U.S. Supreme Court [yesterday] — its first since Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. At the heart of this case is the administration’s order that religious business owners, schools, charities, and nonprofits surrender their beliefs and be forced to facilitate coverage that violates their moral beliefs — or face crippling fines.

In one of the more shocking overreaches of the Obama era, the White House’s hostility even extended to a group of Catholic nuns: Little Sisters of the Poor. As far as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was concerned, even they should have to facilitate the provision of contraception and abortion-causing drugs! To help cushion the blow, the administration announced an “accommodation” that would supposedly spare religious groups from the choice of violating their faith or the law. The only problem is that the “compromise,” which drives the coverage through a third party, doesn’t solve anything. It still makes men and women complicit in the act and payment of the coverage.

Earlier this morning, the justices heard oral arguments in the case of Zubik v. Burwell, consolidated with six other cases (including Little Sisters of the Poor) with dozens of plaintiffs between them, and doubtless affecting scores more of religiously-affiliated universities, organizations, individuals, and others whose religious objections have not yet made it into court. The argument heated up quickly, with Paul Clement, who represented some of the religious challengers, being vigorously questioned by Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Kagan about how government could continue to function if religious actors could consistently object to regulatory schemes like the HHS mandate.

Clement, however, skillfully parried away their questions. “My clients do not object to objecting” — what they have a problem with is being forced to violate their religion by a process the government calls an accommodation. Just because the government “call[s] it an accommodation doesn’t mean its immune from [Religious Freedom Restoration Act] analysis,” Clement noted. When the Chief Justice asked Obama’s top lawyer whether the administration could require even churches to comply with the mandate through signing the form, he said yes. (Let’s hope this isn’t a view of the future under this or a similarly hostile administration.)

Noel Francisco, continuing the argument on behalf of other challengers, honed in on the fact that churches were already exempted under the HHS mandate. The administration has even exempted large, secular corporations like Chevron, Exxon, Visa, and Pepsi Bottling! The existence of other these exemptions and whether they showed that the government did not actually have a compelling interest in imposing the HHS mandate’s requirement on the Little Sisters was a recurring theme throughout the argument. If the government has such a compelling interest, why not exempt the Little Sisters and others like them, since it already has exempted churches and large corporations?

Paul Clement summed up this case best with the closing line of his rebuttal argument: “My client would love to be a conscientious objector. The government insists they be a conscientious collaborator.” For more on the stakes in this case, check out the columns by FRC’s legal and religious liberty experts Travis Weber (“Little Sisters and Big Brother”) and Cathy Ruse (“Little Sisters, Little Pills: It’s All about Power”).

Special Effects of a Special Session

The city of Charlotte can’t say it wasn’t warned. When local officials ignored protests and pushed through a wildly unpopular and potentially dangerous bathroom bill, North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory (R) promised an “immediate” response from state leaders.

[Yesterday], those leaders delivered, convening a special session to undo the damage caused by a radical LGBT measure that throws open public restrooms, locker rooms, and showers to everyone regardless of gender. “It is not only the citizens of Charlotte that will be impacted by changing basic restroom and locker room norms but also citizens from across our state and nation who visit and work in Charlotte,” McCrory said in an email. “This shift in policy could also create major public safety issues by putting citizens in possible danger from deviant actions by individuals taking improper advantage of a bad policy.” Unfortunately, the governor’s tough talk was followed by stony silence, leaving House Speaker Tim Moore (R) and Lt. Gov. Dan Forest to call the session McCrory promised before the ordinance takes effect April 1. Whatever the reason, it’s time for Governor McCrory to finish the job he started. The legislature is doing theirs, by invoking their privileges as state leaders to oversee any so-called “non-discrimination” measures.

According to language released [yesterday], “The General Assembly declares that the regulation of discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation is properly an issue of general, statewide concern, such that this Article and other applicable provisions of the General Statutes supersede and preempt any ordinance, regulation, resolution, or policy adopted or imposed by a unit of local government or other political subdivision of the State that regulates or imposes any requirement pertaining to the regulation of discriminatory practices in places of public accommodation.” As of this writing, the General Assembly overwhelmingly voted to overturn the Charlotte ordinance, 84 (which included 10 Democrats) to 25. If you live in North Carolina, contact Governor McCrory and tell him to follow through with his promise to keep the Tar Heels — and their freedom — safe.

Originally published here.