In an interview with NPR on Election Day, Pamela Prah of Stateline.org expressed surprise that there were no immigration ballot measures this election season. Given the tenor of the debate, I too would’ve expected a series of anti-immigrant initiatives on several state ballots. However, there were at least two ballot initiatives that are still very much a manifestation of nativist sentiment. One, a proposal in Arizona banning affirmative action and another ballot initiative in Oklahoma which makes English the “official” language of the state. Though neither has a direct effect on immigration policy itself, the passage of both initiatives presents serious implications for the immigrant and Latino communities.

On Tuesday, Arizona approved Proposition 107 “banning the consideration of race, ethnicity or gender by units of state government, including public colleges and universities.” Prop. 107 was spearheaded by the American Civil Rights Committee (ACRC), a Sacramento, California political action committee connected to Ward Connerly that funneled thousands of dollars into Arizona this year. ACRC is described by one Asian political blogger as a group “whose members have spent the last two decades traveling from state to state trying to enact harmful, discriminatory laws under the guise of equality.” Unsurprisingly, state Sen. Russell Pearce (R-AZ), the lawmaker who introduced SB-1070 and was “chief promoter” of a separate bill banning ethnic studies, was one of the main figures pushing the anti-affirmative action ballot initiative. He was even featured in radio ads endorsing the measure.

Opponents included Jeffrey F. Milem, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the University of Arizona, who argued that Prop. 107 arguments “are purposefully misleading” and that the initiative itself is “in direct conflict” with previous Supreme Court decisions. Joe Thomas, vice president of the Arizona Education Association, wrote that Prop. 107 “is an anti-equal-opportunity measure.”

Meanwhile, in Oklahoma, voters approved a ballot initiative — Question 751 — which declares English the “official language” of the state. Several states have passed similar legislation, though they tend to vary in their severity. For example, Virginia’s “official language” law stipulates that no state agency or local government shall be required nor prohibited from providing “official” documents in a language other than English. However, Question 751 goes a step further and “requires that official State actions be in English.” “Official state actions” are not defined. Rep. Randy Terrill (R) is one of the legislative members who authored the question’s language — the same lawmaker who told the Associated Press that he “may even take Arizona’s example further and include assets seizure provisions and harsher penalties” for undocumented immigrants. On Question 751, Terrill explains, “What was really the straw that broke the camel’s back was essentially a lawsuit that was prompted against the State of Oklahoma by an Iranian couple in Bartlesville who complained to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration because of our refusal to give them a drivers license test in Farsi.”

Proponents of Question 751 claim that it promotes immigrant integration, however, most experts note that if that were really their goal they’d dedicate more resources to ESL programs. Pat Fennell with the Latino Comm. Development Agency argued, “Instead of passing that kind of legislation, we need to create windows of opportunity while people are learning English.” University of Tulsa professor and attorney, James C. Thomas believes it’s unconstitutional. “It violated the free speech clause. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma in 2002 has already ruled that English only is unconstitutional. Why does the legislature now come back in 2010 and resurrect this issue?” said Thomas.

The language of both ballot initiatives was very carefully crafted. Whether they pass legal muster remains to be seen. What is clear that they were pushed by many of the same actors who have been aggressively pursuing harsh immigration measures throughout the years. Ultimately, it seems likely that these ballot measures are part of a multi-pronged strategy to promote a broader pro-white, anti-minority, anti-multiculturalist right-wing agenda.

Commentary’s Jennifer Rubin passes along a press release from former Commentary blogger Noah Pollak, now the executive director of the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI):

Last night was a good night for the US-Israel relationship, with supporters of a strong alliance prevailing over a number of incumbents who had received financial and rhetorical support from anti-Israel [sic] groups. In Pennsylvania in particular, there was a close Senate race that resulted in the defeat of a candidate who had accused Israel of war crimes and helped raise money for an organization the FBI later called a front group for Hamas. ECI ran ads informing voters of that record, and no doubt many of those voters share our concerns. We are delighted with the result.

ECI is a Bill Kristol operation, so it’s unsurprising that they’ve thus far had a very loose relationship with the truth, but this statement from Pollak is simply a lie. Neither Joe Sestak, nor any member of Congress, has accused Israel of war crimes. What Sestak did, along with 53 of his colleagues, was sign a letter to President Obama in January 2010 advocating a loosening of the Israeli blockade of Gaza. The letter acknowledged Israel’s serious security concerns, but suggested that those concerns “must be addressed without resulting in the de facto collective punishment of the Palestinian residents of the Gaza Strip.”

It’s worth pointing out here that, amid the international outcry over the Gaza flotilla incident, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to do precisely what Sestak and his colleagues asked, and loosen the blockade to allow in such dangerous and previously excluded materials like cumin and pasta. (I’ve contacted Pollak for an explanation, will update if/when he responds.)

Regardless, ECI and other right-wing groups like the Republican Jewish Coalition tried to make the “Gaza 54” a big issue, running millions of dollars of ads against those signers up for re-election. It was a huge failure — some 90% of the “Gaza 54″ signers seeking re-election won their races — but beating these incumbents was probably a secondary goal. The main one was to try and head off the growing progressive challenge from J Street, and attempt to enforce a very narrow, Likud-oriented definition of what constitutes “pro-Israel” by signaling that deep-pocketed right-wing groups are willing to spend millions of dollars and make all kinds of wild accusations against anyone who steps out of line. We’ll see how that goes.

A final point on the attacks on Sestak for being “anti-Israel” is that, even though he narrowly lost, he still carried over 70% of the Pennsylvania Jewish vote, and 49% of the vote overall. These numbers provide ECI and RJC with a few options: Either 70% of Pennsylvania’s Jewish community, and 49% of Pennsylvanians, are “anti-Israel,” or ECI and RJC are working with a ridiculous bad faith definition of “anti-Israel.” Or maybe people just aren’t keying their voting decisions on Israel at all.

There has been a lot of idle speculation over how the outcome of the congressional elections affect the ratification of the New START treaty. Frankly, the elections should change almost nothing. The path to the 67 votes needed to ratify the treaty remains basically unchanged for the lame duck session and it is still the case that the treaty must still be passed by the end of the year.

To ratify New START Democrats do now need to get one additional Republican vote, since Mark Kirk will now immediately replace Roland Burris as the Senator from Illinois. The two other Senators who will take office immediately – Joe Manchin in West Virginia and Chris Coons in Delaware – are replacing other Democrats. Josh Rogin speculated that Manchin could be iffy on New START, but in his staff’s response to a question from Rogin, they said the new Senator would look for guidance from the military brass, which should be good for START, since the entire top brass supports the treaty. So the actual math to pass the treaty doesn’t actually change.

Despite popular perception, the math for START ratification looks pretty good. There are now 58 sitting Democrats in the Senate (including Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT)). That means Democrats need 9 Republicans to ratify the treaty in the lame duck period. Considering that Richard Lugar (R-IN), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), and Bob Corker (R-TN) have all supported the treaty, that means 6 more Republicans are needed to reach 67. This is actually not such a tall order. With the support of the four fairly moderate Republican Senators from New England – Collins (R-ME), Snowe (R-ME), Gregg (R-NH), Brown (R-MA) – and the two retiring moderates – Voinovich (R-OH) and Bennett (R-UT) – the New START treaty would pass. But even if one or two of those drop, there are a number of other possible Republican votes, including Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John McCain (R-AZ), Orin Hatch (R-UT), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and George LeMieux (R-FL).

In fact, the election might have even helped ratification in regards to the lame duck, since the marginalization of Senators Murkowski and Bennett make them more likely to side with other moderate Republicans in favor of the treaty. Additionally, Lamar Alexander has also spoken positively about the treaty and given that his fellow Tennessean, Bob Corker, supports the treaty and that Tennessee is due to get billions in nuclear pork, he seems like a likely yes.

The real questions regarding START ratification remain unchanged – will the Senate GOP leadership of Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) seek to further obstruct the treaty and block a vote that will likely split their caucus; and if that is the case will the Democratic leadership in the Senate allow them to succeed by not pushing for a vote on the Senate floor?