Election College Meets

The Electoral College meets today for their one day of "classes" without any formal athletics or anything. It's time to end class. Let's go with the popular vote. 

The "value" of the Electoral College is quite exaggerated, including a "national candidate" when the races tend to split the usual ways with the usual swing states deciding things. Some people appeal to "federalism" as if there aren't numerous other ways that is protected. Or are upset too many people live in certain states. Again, only certain states benefit. 

You can follow one electoral calendar here, including a day that this year falls on Christmas. More on this year's electors. Among the familiar names of New York electors are the governor, attorney general, the former head of the teacher's union, and so on.  

Two times this century the final count included people who did not win the popular vote. This time the winner is someone who barely did not receive a majority. If that makes you feel better. 

The third-party vote reportedly clearly goes Trump's way regarding second choices, including (no shock really) Jill Stein. So, you know, I'm not too relieved.  

Thirteen Republicans who participated in the 2020 fake electors plot, including some who are facing criminal charges, will cast real Electoral College votes Tuesday for President-elect Donald Trump, as electors in the states finalize his victory.

I saw this depressing (and disgusting; often paired emotions these days) news story. Realistically, perhaps, we should have expected even more than that. We should not forget who is coming into power, including that he should be disqualified for taking part in an insurrection (14A, sec. 3).  

[Trump v. Anderson blocked a state from keeping Trump off the ballot. It did not block electors from voting for someone else. Or, Congress determining he is not qualified. That's all academic but just saying.]  

The overall system in place is that states allot electors based on who wins the state (Congress/D.C.) with two states not using "winner takes all." Many states "pledge" electors while some (last I checked) do not. 

Those states can technically have "faithless electors" though electors tend to be party loyalists. And, there does not seem to be any faithless electors, which is how it should be. We live in a democracy. The people still more or less choose the president, ultimately, even with this silly anachronism in place.  

As the knight says in an Indiana Jones film, they chose unwisely. The new Congress, then fully Republican (again, unwisely), will make the final announcement in January with Vice President Harris presiding. Shades of 2000 without Bush v. Gore.

How depressing. Humphrey, Johnson's vice president, and loser to Nixon in 1968, skipped the job. Jefferson was vice president and oversaw the count of his own election. That wound up to be a tie, settled later.  

Election Thoughts and Consequences

Not A Mandate (But So What?)

The talk is that the economy (Democrats passed major legislation to improve it, it improved, structural problems won't magically be erased, and Harris actually had policies to address it) and immigration (unauthorized immigration dropped and Trump blocked a major immigration bill backed by Democrats) were major drivers in the election of a thin Republican trifecta. Things to think about when we keep on getting lessons on how to win. 

The Republicans do not have some grand "mandate" akin to the Democrats in 2008 where Obama won by much larger margins, the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and more than a handful majority in the House. And, Obama was alleged not to be a citizen, and losing one senator was put out there as a reason to toss out the Affordable Care Act.  

As Kevin Kruse notes in an earlier link, "mandate" has a rhetorical value, which is why Republicans are tossing it out there. Reasonably, it means a large win, though I guess a trifecta arguably works. 

Still. If a thin electoral victory is a "mandate," the word loses much force. OTOH, as Kruse also notes, power is the bottom line. So, perhaps, on some level, the Republicans are right. If not willing to be consistent. What else is new there? 

Staying Home 

Trump winning the popular vote, plurality-wise at the very least, was helped by a big drop-off from Biden to Harris, including in places like New York City. We can explain it by racism/sexism/whatever (policy/vibes also factor in), but the number of people not voting that voted for Biden could have won the election for Harris. This is an epic voter fail.

Some people rather not apportion blame here but like a manager only getting special kudos when the team does good, that doesn't work. "We the People" have the power in a republic. And, the responsibility.  

The numbers are not final but it looks like Trump gained votes from last time but in no way high enough numbers that it reached the Biden margin of victory. The assorted third-party candidates had the balance of power. Trump's coattails may have helped in the Pennsylvania Senate race, which was quite close. 

The House races were basically a wash. The Democrats lost two good men from red state Senate slots. They had various good state results, including in judicial elections. Democrats manage to win statewide offices in red states. They still need to find a way to win red-state U.S. Senate races.  

Anti-Trans Bigotry

Other than some dubious Cabinet picks and starting on a bad foot ethically and integrity-wise, the first thing that Republicans did with their mandate was transphobia. Erin Reed is a good source here. 

I covered this earlier but it warrants a repeat in this general election round-up. Republicans do not deserve political control for this very reason. 

They use it in horrible ways. The people do not care enough. It's a problem.   

SCOTUS Watch: Order Day

While we, as noted yesterday, on in the "final countdown," SCOTUS is back to remind us how the courts on on the ballot. The oral argument today might have been dull but they can't avoid that.

Today's Order List, which is (as usual) not too fascinating has various reminders of this fact. Some lower court cases are disposed of with reference to SCOTUS cases involving administrative law and gun regulation. (Amy Howe has more.)

Court personnel and the federal government's position in these cases are significantly affected by who controls the other two branches of government. 

Jurisdiction is noted in two cases involving the use of race in districting with oral argument pending. Election cases are one of the few areas where Congress restricted the Supreme Court's ability to pick and choose what cases to take. Liberals regularly hold their breath in such cases.

One case involving immigration law was granted. Riley v. Garland might have a different caption (name) when the case is handed down. It is likely that whoever wins that we will have a new attorney general.  Let's see how this one is judged.

There is also a short per curiam that sends back a case involving intellectual disability and the death penalty to clarify what the lower court meant. Thomas and Gorsuch would have taken the case now. The case had been "relisted," suggesting some complications behind the scenes. This result feels like a compromise that kicks things down the road.  

===

Today's Strict Scrutiny Podcast talked about Alito and the princess, which is the stuff they (especially Meghan Markle fan, Melissa Murray) LIVE for. One wrinkle is a possible violation of the Titles of Nobility Clause. Sure, why not? 

Steve Vladeck talked about presidents and justices in his weekly substack. And, what is a Vladeck post without a helpful spreadsheet?

President Biden had one justice vacancy to fill while Trump had three. Let's not give him two more.  

SCOTUS Watch

SCOTUS had no oral arguments. They were somewhat busy with orders and November began with a conference which will bring orders on Monday. 

The Supreme Court on Monday allowed a federal law intended to standardize anti-doping and safety regulations in horse racing to remain in place while a challenge to that law plays out.

Amy Howe dealt with the somewhat confusing procedural dynamics. Bottom line, only Justice Jackson (though Prof. Steve Vladeck on Twitter said she was right) openly disagreed. 

The move suggests that the justices are interested in taking the case. If so, it can have some significant effect on regulatory choice. There was some bipartisan support for this particular regulation with Mitch McConnell among those saying it has made things safer overall.

Gorsuch dissented from the decision to leave Kennedy on the ballot in Michigan. In a short paragraph, he indicated that he largely agreed with the three conservative judges in the 6th Circuit who would have ordered Benson to remove Kennedy from the ballot.

Robert Kennedy Jr. ended his campaign for president and supported Trump. Kennedy then tried to game the ballot process to keep himself on the ballot in states where it would help Trump and remove his name where it would not. 

The Supreme Court turned down two attempts out of Michigan and Wisconsin, two important "blue wall" swing states. Gorsuch alone dissented in one case.  

The lower courts partially were dubious about Kennedy's two-faced approach. Why would it be coercive to force him to be on the ballot only in certain states?  Also, he waited so long, it would be problematic to do so with voting already starting. 

The Supreme Court on Wednesday temporarily blocked an order by a federal judge that would have required Virginia to return more than 1,600 people to the voter rolls. U.S. District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles found that since early August the state had canceled the registration of more than 1,600 voters – at least some of whom were U.S. citizens eligible to vote – under a program intended to remove suspected noncitizens from the voting rolls.  

The justices, with neither faction explaining themselves, split ideologically 6-3. Steve Vladeck explains how this is another troubling exercise of the "shadow docket." Technically, only the three liberals dissented on the record. 

OTOH, if a conservative wanted not to be counted as going along, they shouldn't do the mostly (especially here, where the ideologically split vote looks bad) useless act of voting in a way only the justices and their clerks know about.

The lower court decided the other way. The stakes warrant an explanation. Yes, people can still register if they have the right information, though it can be burdensome (one person missed hours of work). People who voted by mail and do not realize there is a problem might be out of luck.

Voting is a fundamental right. A federal law was passed to protect erroneous deprivation near an election when there might not be time to fix false positives.  The balance should go to the voter here.

Cornell West   

Meanwhile, without referring it to the whole court, Alito disposed of a request by Cornell West to have polling places in Pennsylvania have signs telling voters they can write his name in. Sounds a wee bit desperate. Alito: no flag for you. 

West is on the list of people who will be counted if voters in New York write in their names for president.

Friday Night Fun 

I thought we were done but they decided to drop another order apparently after 6 P.M. on Friday. 

They refused a GOP request to narrow options for Pennsylvanian voters who botch mail ballots and try to vote on Election Day. This time, there is a statement by Alito (the circuit judge; joined by Thomas and Gorsuch), explaining that though the case addresses a serious issue, the specific claim doesn't work. 

So, the justices can explain when they wish. 

Other News  

SCOTUS dropped a media advisory regarding the limited sitting in a trans rights case. The Trump Administration would have a different take. 

Ready for 2025? January argument time!   

Right now, the Supreme Court is on the ballot. 

Duty To Vote

My blog on voting references voting as a civil responsibility and even a moral duty. The Duty to Vote by Julia Maskivker spells out the latter argument without a legal mandate, which some countries have with limited enforcement. 

I don't think a legal mandate is necessary though if it was in place, it seems to me likely to be an extremely mild burden. It is not likely to be enforced and the result would likely be a minor fine unless (maybe) the person is a constant scofflaw.  

What is the responsibility of a citizen? Non-citizens have to follow the law. Citizens might have to occasionally go to jury duty. 

Residents with some basic connection to the community can be liable for treason, which is largely academic in the current days anyway. Citizens traditionally had militia duties, which currently again is largely academic without a draft. 

We can consider moral duties to include some overall concern about the community. A citizen would have a duty to be aware of public events in some basic fashion. They should have some minimal education. They should engage with fellow citizens with minimal respect. Mandatory education laws exist. We do not fine people for simply being an asshole. 

We live in a republican democracy where the people select our leaders. Many people do not vote. The most notable result occurs in primary elections where there is more of a likelihood that highly motivated partisans will vote. This is likely to skewer the general election candidates. 

If we honor equality, we should also try to promote an equal role for citizens in who leads them. The ultimate choice here is elections.  

What is the concern? Does it violate libertarian values? The minimal requirement here is trivial compared to many other requirements, including daily use of seatbelts in cars or the inability to purchase various drugs. A blank vote would provide someone the ability to avoid supporting an ideological choice. 

A moral requirement to vote -- which again need not be legally mandated -- could be fulfilled by submitting a blank vote. If you do not like either candidate, there is a third option. The same applies if you are not sure about ballot measures. "Neither" can be an option. Write-ins can also be available.  

A blank ballot might register on the voting machine to ensure that it is not by mistake. A blank ballot was also a way to protest the Palestinian situation during the primary this year.  You can avoid that by making it a separate choice, which would keep things private.  

I do not see much of a libertarian burden here even philosophically. A blank vote is akin to a non-vote. A person can be sent a self-addressed, postage-paid postcard to send back if all you want to do is submit a blank ballot.  

We might be concerned about requiring the uninformed and apathetic voters to submit a ballot. First off, the two are not the same. People do not vote for a variety of reasons. Often they would vote if mildly pressed to do so, such as given a ballot at the post office. Second, the blank vote option provides such voters a path of least resistance. 

Finally, it is unclear to me what the net result would be if we have some additional pressure for such people to vote. Many people who vote are ill-informed. Are these people much different?  

Second, if we do more to pressure people to vote, we should also do more to educate them. Net, we might come out the same, or even improve the situation.  

We often hear PSAs and so forth encouraging us to vote. Overall, the assumption often is that voting will lean a certain way. It will in some areas. Having more people vote in heavily blue or red districts very well might not. It still can be a useful civic enterprise.

Citizenship is often seen as almost a sacred thing though it often doesn't truly mean much. Voting is one case of citizenship meaning something. For non-citizens or those too young or otherwise unable to vote, they too can get involved. For instance, they can be informed, discuss the issues, and petition. 

We should consider ourselves bound as citizens to have a duty to vote. Again, if you honestly think you are too uninformed to make an informed choice, there are options to not choose unwisely.  

I do not think the arguments against this are sound.

I Voted and You Should Too!

Voting 

The stakes are high this election. People can do various things to help. 

The most basic thing you can do is to vote. It is a civic responsibility. I am inclined to agree that it should be a civic duty.  Try it. It won't bite.  

New York has had early voting for the last five years. It was a bit of a trudge at first to walk to the early voting location. Now, it is only a few blocks away. It is near Rite Aid where I received my free shots.

Voters can also vote by mail. We do not have "drop boxes." The usual suspects challenged the ability of all voters to vote by mail. Republicans used to favor absentee voting.  It was upheld in court.  

Voting ID

New York does not require identification. You sign a little laptop "e-poll book." New York voters do receive a card that eases processing since it has a helpful bar code.  You get a pen with a rubber tip to sign in. 

Voting identification addresses a fake problem (Rick Hasen and others did the math) of voting fraud. A minimum burden, and it would be for some people, is a poor cost/benefit in that respect. 

A voting identification system can provide minimum problems. If the government does a good job, it can also provide helpful free identification. New York City, for instance, has a free ID with many perks. 

A sensible regime would provide a grace period (maybe 1-2 election cycles) and safeguards. For instance, Texas provides free election certificates upon request if you do not have various types of photo identification. Voters can have provisional ballots as an additional safeguard.  

I can contemplate an agreeable compromise though understand why people (1) don't think it worthwhile and (2) distrust the people who want ID laws.  The distrust is well-earned.  But, a middle path is possible and can have its own benefits.  

Ballot Measures 

I have already talked about the New York ballot measures. There is a statewide measure that expands equality. To repeat:

This proposal would protect against unequal treatment based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity and pregnancy. It also protects against unequal treatment based on reproductive healthcare and autonomy.

Multiple states specifically have ballot measures addressing abortion rights.  This measure is more open-ended. I am fine with that -- our rights are open-ended. Abortion rights fit into a wider whole.  Maybe, it would be best not to have the other equality provisions all at once. But, overall, it's okay.  

There are also city ballot measures. One involves sanitation issues and others address some technical matters. The city measures have baggage as restraints on the city council in a battle over control with the mayor. 

The first measure is a valid way for the public to express their will. The rest are of varying levels confusing and unnecessary. I agree direct democracy has its place. Sometimes, it is taken too far.  

Voting 

After a voter signs in, they obtain a ballot, along with their pen and sticker (or two, if you got a "future voter" sticker). At the early voting site, there was a guide for the ballot measures, but you had to give it back. They go to a small "privacy booth" (little table) and fill out the ballot. 

Then, they walk it up to the scanner and feed it in. There are no receipts. If they make a mistake on the ballot, they have two more shots. 

Early voting (nine days), voting by mail, and many ballot locations help lead to a quick process. You might have to wait a few minutes. But, that is basically all. It might be longer at some locations but generally long lines and such is not our problem. 

[ETA: Early voting has been busy in various locations, which has led to some wait time. 

But, it also still is not comparable to the specter of hours-long lines that arise in certain cases over the years elsewhere.]

We also have a ballot market machine with multiple means for disabled people to vote.  It is rarely used at my location though in one year the operator encouraged more people to use it. You do not have to be disabled and it helps to prevent mistakes. 

(The voter still has to check in at the e-poll book but can use an assistant if necessary.) 

Main Attraction 

The president, vice president, and members of Congress are the main attractions. Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand is running for re-election in New York. 

We don't have any additional presidential slots though you can vote Working Family (Harris) or Conservative (Trump). There are official write-ins, including Jill Stein and Cornell West. These are candidates for president on the ballot who will be counted. Other races do not have this rule. A curious quirk.  

New York City has instant run-off voting in the primaries. District attorneys are state offices so they are not part of that. Instant run-off voting is also not used for general or federal elections. 

It would make sense to do so, including for federal elections, because sometimes third parties lead to the other two having less than 50% of the vote.  This sometimes leads to unnecessary run-off elections.  

New York this year also votes for state senators and assembly members. There are third-party options for certain races, including a LaRouche slot. 

Election Day 

Is it Election Day yet? The waiting is stressful.  

No. It's only early voting.

The Media

The ultimate fear is that Trump will win. The media is helping him. Check out your local paper online. 

I was pissed off checking the New York Times. Where are all the articles underlining how horrible Trump is? You would not know anything special is going on.  

Various articles about Trump help. But, the level of horrible warrants a whole lot more.  

There is also the failure of major newspapers to endorse someone. I have seen people handwave that as not mattering much. It still is somewhat troubling. 

The minimum should be for newspapers to provide information about the candidates and ballot measures. There are some helpful online resources to provide local and state news for New York, including this helpful discussion of judicial elections.  

I find judicial elections troublesome with our (NY) particular variety basically a big joke. The candidates are pre-chosen and in most cases, the number of people you choose for slots is the same as the number available. I fill in a name for at least one of them.  

Endorsements

My views are apparent. Trump is a grave threat to our country. He is overall unfit for the office. He is constitutionally disqualified by taking part in an insurrection. Trump v. Anderson be damned.

Republicans aided and abetted him. Swing districts in 2022 helped them obtain a thin majority in the House of Representatives. New York districts played a major role. Hopefully, they help to swing things the other way.  Gillibrand is a fine Democrat.

I cited my opinions on the ballot measures. I do not have much to say about the state races. My state senator has good progressive positions. 

The assemblyman is newer to the office and seems more bland. For whatever reason, he is not on the Working Family line. Don't know if that means much.  I grant I do not pay much attention to him. 

(The two people are Sen. Gustavo Rivera and Assemblyman John Zaccaro Jr.  I probably should pay somewhat more attention to them. But, I think the thumbnail comments are overall satisfactory.) 

The judicial races are a joke. We should not have them under the current system. Seven more ovals to fill in for no real reason is just tedious. 

Happy voting!

SCOTUS Denies Green Party Request in Nevada

Jay Sekulow was part of getting the Supreme Court involved in stopping the denial of the Green Party candidate for president being on the ballot in Nevada. He used to be at the Supreme Court defending Christian speech. 

Now, he is often involved in Trump-related litigation. in a vacuum, the lawsuit seems sympathetic:

Under Nevada law, if minor political parties, like the Green Party, want to appear on the general election ballot, they are required to gather signatures from registered voters, using the minor party access form. Importantly, the form has a sworn statement at the top explicitly states that signatures be from registered voters only. In July 2023, however, the Nevada Secretary of State’s office incorrectly provided the Green Party with the “ballot initiative” form, which lacks the sworn registration statement.

A conservative supporting dismissing the importance of such a "voting security" law is a tad rich. Still, the technical violation (which the state at first didn't deem worthy to block Jill "Russia Agent" Stein from the ballot)  does seem trivial. 

Nonetheless, consistently applying the rules -- including the Supreme Court not intervening late -- appears to warrant the result here. Meanwhile, the conservative-leaning North Carolina Supreme Court selectively helped Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his plan to stay on the ballot only in states that don't matter. 

I would not have opposed the state court going the other way either if they did so consistently. This is true even though Stein not being on the ballot in a swing state probably will help the Democrats win a very close election.  

The Supreme Court acted correctly here. 

SCOTUS Update

Harris and the Supreme Court

Vice President Harris strongly supported abortion rights during the presidential debate. She also supports court reform:

Vice President Harris believes that no one is above the law. She’ll fight to ensure that no former president has immunity for crimes committed while in the White House. She will also support common-sense Supreme Court reforms—like requiring Justices to comply with ethics rules that other federal judges are bound by and imposing term limits—to address the crisis of confidence facing the Supreme Court.

(New issues page on her campaign website.) 

Judges for Court Reform 

Justice Kagan reaffirmed her support of a binding ethics code enforced by lower court judges. Likewise, she noted that the "emergency docket" (aka shadow docket) has been overused. Prof. Melissa Murray of Strict Scrutiny Podcast interviewed her.

(Kagan also warns Dobbs can be an open-ended threat to other rights.) 

Former Chief Judge Diane Wood supports statutory term limits of federal judges. She even positively cited the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court. That commission deserves a bit more love. 

Broad 19th Amendment

I have previously argued that the 19th Amendment suggests an open-ended view of sexual equality. 

Sexual equality is required to truly protect voting rights. Also, equal voting rights are part of a united whole of equal citizenship. More here with a connection to Dobbs (abortion). 

Trump v. Anderson 

A duo who argued the 14th Amendment warrants Trump's disqualification, using originalist arguments, has a follow-up to the ruling itself. 

I don't agree with everything they say, especially that "obviously" original understanding, not SCOTUS precedent, provides meaning to the Constitution. However, it is overall a strong and correct reply. 

They argue the per curiam -- at least the final version -- does not actually (contra the main concurrence) say only federal legislation will enforce 14A, sec. 3. States can't (even there, maybe they would have a role). 

OTOH, the opinion leaves in language that leads people to think that. So, what it "really" says might be beside the point. If it is assumed they said it, it might be enough. Anyway, the whole thing is likely academic. As to Trump, one surely hopes so. 

Ketanji Brown Jackson 

Jackson's autobiography, Lovely One, provides an intimate life of her life. 

The four hundred-page book, which she wrote with someone thanked in the acknowledgments, should appeal to the general reader. It might be a bit too long at 400 pages, but it is easy reading overall. 

We learn about her parents, her academic drive (including debate in high school), her relationship with the white future doctor who became her husband, and the struggles of her older daughter (neurodivergent).  The last subject is one of the more personal discussions, including the couple's struggles to balance career and family & find out what was the best academic path for their daughter.  

[Like two ships passing in the night, Jackson and Barrett also worked at the same law firm, but apparently not at exactly the same time.] 

She also informs us how she came upon her current hairstyle. Hair is very important to women of color. Melissa Harris-Perry on her MNBC weekend show (Perry and Chris Hayes had more ability to have free-range discussions on those shows) once had a very interesting segment on the subject.  

Some readers might wish she talked more about law and her legal experiences. Jackson did cover that too though the section on her law school experience is brief except for a discussion on the law review. 

The book ends with her Supreme Court confirmation so don't expect her to talk about her time there. She also followed the usual rules about talking about her Supreme Court clerkship though provided some basic details while not talking about inside material.

Overall, it was an interesting and personable book that should get a wide readership.  

Upcoming 

The new term will start on the first Monday of October. We will likely have more miscellaneous orders before then. 

There will also be multiple executions, starting next week. There might be one or more final orders dismissing Hail Mary attempts to stop them. 

Georgia Election Threats

Trump is patently unfit as well as simply horrible but we still have to sweat thin margins in swing states because of the damn Electoral College. The Electoral College is somewhat better, in a way, than Trump's scam university but not too much in the 21st Century. Only one got us two dubious "leaders of the free world." 

Georgia is one swing state where Biden barely won along with both Democratic senators, who allowed the Democrats to have a trifecta. It was a close call -- a fraction of one percent of the vote led to a runoff (thanks to the Libertarian candidate) for Jon Ossoff, helped by a freestanding election after Trump was tainted. 

Georgia County Installs ‘Panic Buttons’ For Poll Workers As Concerns Grow Over New Rules

Georgia has a semi-sane Republican governor, who is not "all-in" on MAGA electoral fiction. He supports various burdensome voting requirements that needlessly make voting harder. He is a Republican. He now is pro-Trump though is trying to split the baby, so to speak, on just how crazy he wants to go regarding election denial tactics. 

I notice the above article. One thing that makes it feel personal is that I do poll work. We don't have many problems here* in New York City and the two places I worked generally were smooth sailing. We have many polling places here, 10 ten days of early voting, and generous voting by mail rules.  

Lest we forget while it slowly moves along, a basic issue in the Georgia criminal case (also a civil lawsuit against Rudy Giuliani) was harassment and lies against two African-American poll workers. They are not alone.

Both parties, if they warranted our respect, would on a bipartisan basis be concerned when we get to this point:

The need for panic buttons is reflective of the current threat environment that election workers find themselves in. Neal Kelley, the former registrar of voters for Orange County, California and chair of The Committee for Safe and Secure Elections doesn’t think the implementation of these panic buttons is extreme, but rather, a necessary step to protect election workers. 

The 2020 election shows the potential dangers, especially if poll workers angered MAGA types by simply doing their jobs. Election officials are not happy about two new election rules that will make it harder to confirm the results:

The people who run elections in Georgia are angry and frustrated over new state rules that they say will make the process less secure and their jobs more difficult.

As the panic button notes -- we should always be concerned about the wider issues here -- the rules are dubious:

One of these rules gives the Georgia Election Board the authority to not certify election results until a “reasonable inquiry” into any discrepancies in the voting process at the county level has been conducted. As TPM has previously reported, the rule is vague and does not explain what constitutes a “reasonable inquiry.”

And the second rule, gives election board members power “to examine all election-related documentation before certifying the results.” This same rule also dictates that if there is a discrepancy between the ballot count and the number of voters, the board must investigate the discrepancy before the election can be certified. 

Our nation's elections are still largely state-run. It can turn on state litigation. Florida in 2000 showed how this could have national effects. It also underlines the stupidity of the Trump v. Anderson ruling. 

So, state regulation of the 14th Amendment provision might cause difficulties? Oh no! That never happens! The fact three of the justices involved in that case were also working behind the scenes in Bush v. Gore (Alito was a judge, Thomas was a justice, and not sure why Gorsuch was not involved) underlines the hypocrisy. 

Sen. Schumer says Senate Democrats are open to altering filibuster rules after the 2024 elections, including to pass major voting rights legislation. A bipartisan bill was passed to update the electoral vote process, making it harder to cause problems. Not surprisingly, this occurred when the Democrats fully controlled Congress.  

We are still far from having another trifecta to make such legislation possible. It also will not remove all problems, including the overall troubles with the Electoral College possibly negating a large popular vote victory. 

It underlines the importance of voting blue. 

==

* Update: Okay. Well, we don't have people waiting for hours on lines and so on, but this blithe comment was somewhat too flippant. 

I was informed about a Board of Elections worker (Republican) indicted for extortion and conspiracy, including accepting bribes to give poll worker positions. Again, that hits home. 

The NYT article expands on recent problems:

The charges against Ms. Torres are the most recent in a string of scandals at the long-troubled board, which have included failing to mail out absentee ballots, a botched rollout of the ranked-choice voting system, disenfranchisement of voters and more.

So, yes, we have work to do here too.

SCOTUS Watch: Voting and Reform

Steve Vladeck (who wrote a book on it) has noted that the justices have a much busier than usual [not clear how it compares with last year; that is when the uptick truly began] "shadow docket" of note this summer. 

The shadow docket is a fancy name for appeals, particularly in notable cases (summer order list disposes of insignificant ones), which require some resolution. Will Baude wrote of it in a well-known article in 2015. Baude noted that the shadow docket was "a range of orders and summary decisions that defy its normal procedural regularity."

For instance, the Supreme Court handled a shadow docket (often called the "emergency docket," to suggest there is the need for quick resolution) case last week involving a challenge to Biden's new regulations of trans students. The justices split 5-4, agreeing to hold up many regulations in around half the states, though they agreed on a minor matter. 

The shadow docket might be an area that Congress and the president can think about when addressing court reform. Chris Geidner suggested Vice President Kamala Harris address it in her convention speech. As Vladeck notes, the Supreme Court could do more to restrain lower court action that makes the shadow docket such a potential place for action. They do not. 

She did not though she did reference abortion, which is definitely related. She has supported Biden's three reform proposals. Other than ethics reform, they are long shots. But the tenor of his remarks matters too. Biden made clear the stakes when he explained what he planned to focus on in his final months:

And I’m going to call for Supreme Court reform because this is critical to our democracy — Supreme Court reform.

The Vice President did discuss voting, including supporting voting rights legislation. The Supreme Court in Shelby County v. Holder held that the preclearance mechanism in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was unconstitutional because it was out of date. Congress could update it but that would require major legislation and breaking the filibuster. 

The inability to block new voting limits in "covered" jurisdictions has led to many more restrictions. The Supreme Court's latest shadow docket opinion addressed proof of citizenship laws in Arizona, parts of which are covered by the Voting Rights Act. Rick Hasen notes such laws pointlessly threaten the voting rights of thousands of people. 

The upshot is that people who have registered with the state-only form are going to have to either provide documentary proof of citizenship if they want to vote in all elections in Arizona in the fall, or they will be able to register using the federal form without documentary proof of citizenship only for President, Senate, and Congressional races.

Hasen parses the opinion or rather order (see also, Ian Millhiser and Amy Howe). The order simply notes what was decided and who voted for what path. 

No one actually explained their decision-making. Federal judges, including David Tatel in his latest book (Vision), repeatedly tell us that judges are different. They explain. Not always.

(Not explaining helps cover up many sins as shown by this discussion that covers multiple problems with the result. Those who keep track of these things, for instance, flagged the "Purcell Principle," which is more of a guideline, as they say.)  

Like Caesar's Gaul, the Supreme Court split in three ways. Justice Barrett (who from time to time cautions restraint regarding the shadow docket) joined the liberals. They would not stay in a lower court that held up the restrictions. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have allowed the restrictions to go into place. 

A majority allowed one restriction to go into place. Millhiser, the most vocal liberal of the bunch, explains the result could have been much worse.  Roberts and Kavanaugh did not publicly vote. 

Nonetheless, it takes five votes to obtain a majority. They must have joined with the three conservatives to allow the one restriction to go into place as the litigation continues. Meanwhile, at least one justice had to join with the four to hold up the rest. Need not be both.  

The result allows voters to avoid the restriction in federal elections by using a federal form. Arizona is a swing state with an important Senate seat up for a vote in November. State elections matter (including an abortion referendum) but the stakes can be higher on the federal side.  

Ultimately, this is merely one step in a longer journey. The litigation continues. The biggest game here is the possibility of federal voting rights reform. The key there is winning a trifecta in the 2024 elections. The courts also play an important role as seen by this very decision.  

The people involved in selecting judges and overseeing federal voting rights litigation are yet another thing to factor in. We see the importance of each branch, executive, legislative, and judicial. 

Court reform again is on the docket in November. Kamala Harris has shown her distrust of the Supreme Court. We shall see how she handles things now that she is a presidential candidate. 

A Complete Nineteenth Amendment

I long to hear that you have declared an independancy—and by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If perticuliar care and attention is not paid to the Laidies we are determined to foment a Rebelion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.

A blog's daily Supreme Court history entry allows commentary and someone else has kept track of Supreme Court cases too. Summer generally involves citing circuit judge rulings.

Today's entry honors the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920. Abigail Adams finally had her day. John Adams laughed her off at the time. 

To remind you, the text is (it did not separate things into sections [compare the 13th] for some reason): 

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Rick Hasen and Leah Litman wrote an article supporting a "thick" version of the amendment. The amendment (see also, 14A, sec. 2) guards against "abridging" the right to vote on account of sex. The word suggests a broader limit than simple "denial." 

There are many practices that in purpose and effect deny and abridge voting rights on account of sex. Congress has the authority to pass laws to deal with these problems. For instance, if a policy harms working women or stay-at-home mothers. 

"Voting" here can and should be defined broadly to include jury duty and office holding. And, the policies need not only harm voting. Things tend not to be put in such clean boxes. 

The "thick" view also understands voting rights for women as part of a comprehensive whole. For instance, the article cites Adkins v. Children's Hospital, which shortly after ratification struck down a minimum wage law that applied to women:

In view of the great—not to say revolutionary—changes which have taken place since that utterance, in the contractual, political, and civil status of women, culminating in the Nineteenth Amendment, it is not unreasonable to say that these differences have now come almost, if not quite, to the vanishing point.

The government denied women the right to vote because of the belief women were not truly equal citizens. Men alone had the ability and duty to take part in public life and government. The Nineteenth Amendment helps call out this sentiment.  

You do not have to go all the way. A person could still argue that women had certain disabilities and inequalities that warranted women alone to have a minimum wage. More equitably, you can argue a minimum wage is acceptable across the board. 

A lower court case that upheld abortion rights before Roe v. Wade cited the Nineteenth Amendment as part of a series of developments that changed things:

The changed role of women in society and the changed attitudes toward them reflect the societal judgment that women can competently order their own lives and that they are the appropriate decisionmakers about matters affecting their fundamental concerns. 

[Connecticut passed a new anti-abortion law, leading to a second case by that name. Judge Newman, who concurred in the first case, wrote another opinion also upholding abortion rights. It was that opinion that was influential to multiple justices in the majority of Roe v. Wade. But, the first warrants respect as well.]

There was a dissenting view from the beginning that citizen rights included the right to vote for women. Likewise, people argued that control of basic decision-making, including reproductive liberty was necessary. 

Time passed and more people accepted this to be true. The Nineteenth Amendment on its own need not be the only thing we use to protect the rights of women. 

Nonetheless, it helps. The dissent in Dobbs honors the right of individuals, including "women—to make their own choices and chart their own futures." Full citizenship, including the right to vote, included.  

A final thought reaffirms the unity. There are fewer women than men in political office even today in various places (e.g., the Congress), and those who are there are burdened by societal practices. 

Women run for office later, sometimes choose political careers over motherhood, and continue to be burdened by various inequalities. These things "deny or abridge" on account of sex and are 19th Amendment concerns.  

Our republican system of government is a complex whole. The First Amendment provides important protections necessary for informed voting. Sometimes, they can be burdened on account of sex, including if people think women should not speak in church. 

A complete view of the 19A deals with all things that factor into equal suffrage. It is part of a wider constitutional whole. There is a continual need -- over one hundred years later -- to honor it in full. 

Voting for Harris/Walz will help! 

SCOTUS Watch

Transgender Students

SCOTUS has its own form of "Friday Afternoon News Dump":

A little past 5:00 p.m. Friday — more than two weeks after the Biden administration’s new rule addressing sex discrimination under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 went into effect — the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled on a Justice Department request to limit injunctions against enforcement of the rule during litigation.

Sotomayor wrote the partial dissent for the liberals and Gorsuch. The opinions (a short per curiam included) are for whatever reason found on the Opinions page. 

As Chris Geidner notes:

On a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court rejected DOJ’s request — keeping the rule completely blocked in 26 states and hundreds of schools in other states while litigation proceeds, despite the fact the almost all of the challenges only addressed three provisions of the lengthy rule that were aimed at providing protections for transgender students.

Chris Geidner has been on the case as this litigation has been ongoing. It looks like an abuse of injunctive relief arising from another multi-state policy litigation. 

Court reform should in part have this on its radar. Gorsuch has (if not always consistently) spoken about his concerns about injunctions in the past. His Bostock ruling suggests he might be more sympathetic on this issue than some others. 

Amy Howe also discusses the ruling.

(ETA: The per curiam emphasizes that it is "important" to note that the dissent agrees as to three things. But the federal government does not even challenge two. 

It grants the matter is complicated and it can be held up as it is litigated as to those two things. I'm unsure exactly why the partial dissent disagreed with them as to the third thing. Still, it's a limited matter.) 

Gorsuch's Book 

Justice Gorsuch has a new book out regarding overregulation. He is giving some interviews. For instance, it was reported he told supporters of Supreme Court reform should be careful. 

Gorsuch is not simply a knee-jerk jurist. He supports Native American rights, wrote an opinion protecting GLBTQ people, and applies his wariness of governmental power in the promotion of liberal causes from time to time. 

I still find his takes overly simplistic and cocksure. And, he is still conservative regarding many important issues, including abortion, the death penalty, and administrative law. He is often a fourth vote in the liberal cases, adding to his limited value. 

This criticism of his administrative law principles covers some of that ground, including how he wrongly mixes policy with judicial interpretation. Appellate judges will make policy. The rub is he makes bad policy and refuses to even grant he is making any. 

Another analysis targets his simplistic usage of history, including a Madison focus. Madison, a favored founder of different sides, isn't quite the median original understanding guy some take him out to be. Liberal or conservative flawed originalism is still just that -- flawed law office history. 

A third analysis argues that Gov. Walz (not a lawyer) helpfully provides a different mindset about civics and republican values. Perhaps so. But, there are wrongminded sentiments from all comers there.  

Petitions 

A website helpfully keeps track of petitions on the "shadow docket." Two notables concern voting rights in Arizona and another blockage of Biden's attempt at student loan forgiveness via statutory means in place to do just that.  

Support for Reform 

We can debate specifics. The public supports Supreme Court reform. Once you are there, the rest is detail, if admittedly critical details.  

Democrats and independents strongly support all of Biden's proposals. Republicans strongly support ethics and are more narrowly supportive of term limits and an amendment to override the immunity ruling. 

It is good on the merits and as a political strategy. Ultimately, the people's faith in the Supreme Court has diminished in recent years. They saw Thomas and Alito act unethically and at least concerning Thomas probably in violation of criminal laws (disclosure).  

The ultimate judgment here is that the Supreme Court has to be taken down a peg. If an institution, be it the Catholic Church (Reformation, anyone?) or a Supreme Court with a supermajority of Catholics, oversteps, reform is not a bad thing. 

Some talk about a threat to judicial independence. Liberty and license are not the same thing. Too much independence can lead to tyranny. 

We sometimes rely too much on the courts. The meaning of the Constitution is obtained by many institutions and the people themselves. The courts were a major aspect of the 1800 elections. 

Why not 2024?

SCOTUS Watch: More Opinions with Some Tyranny

Stephen Breyer's Book

Various liberals were not impressed by Stephen Breyer's latest book, Reading the Constitution: Why I Chose Pragmatism, Not Textualism. 

The book's purpose was to explain his approach to serving as a justice and judge and interpreting the law. His guest appearance on Stephen Colbert (blah) underlines he is writing for a broad audience. He has written some books for specialists. He intended a broader audience here. 

If you want a readable (if still somewhat academic) book on his constitutional vision, you should read Active Liberty. It is shorter and covers the important bases. He had a longer one, which was still approachable. His book on international legal disputes also was not bad though some might find it too long.

This book is a slog. His message is important, which makes it unfortunate Breyer could not manage a condensed version. I am sympathetic to his purpose-based approach. I find originalism asinine. Textual (not the same thing) without more is inadequate. And, a book about how the Court is doing it wrong (though he is loathed to admit his colleagues, to whom he dedicated the book, using their first names, are ideologically biased) has value. 

I wouldn't suggest this one even if from time to time there are some kernels of interest. 

Yes, It's Bad, Even if It Is Not TOTALLY HORRIBLE

Some takes on the Supreme Court opinions underline how horrible everything is. Then, some people respond to argue things aren't that bad. They are pretty bad.

Multiple cases (including one handed down today allowing more time for people to sue) are blows against the administrative state. The opinions were 6-3 and each liberal took turns dissenting from the bench. The administrative state isn't dead. But, surely, as a whole, these cases were a BFD that were part of a years-long campaign.  

The 1/6 statutory case was of limited reach. Nonetheless, it was problematic, especially how the case was framed. And, the majority [Jackson tried to show otherwise in her concurrence] helped. The "vibes" can influence lower court actions and how the overall prosecutions are interpreted publicly:

Among other things, that misperception will only further embolden a future President Trump, if he wins election this November, to drop the remaining January 6 prosecutions and pardon those already convicted — even where the charges are completely unrelated to the statute the court narrowed in Fischer. The justices are savvy, smart people who live both physically and metaphorically inside the Capital Beltway. They should have known better.

A reference in today's immunity case even suggests it might have some implications in the Trump trial. The Trump immunity opinion, which is horrible in a variety of ways, does not seal out all means to prosecute him.

Nonetheless, it significantly expanded (with the backing of a majority opinion of the Supreme Court) the reach of immunity from prosecution. Official presidential acts or even those on the edge ("presumptively" protected) now are immune, based on made-up rules. Melissa Murray of Strict Scrutiny underlines the breadth (here Barrett got off the bus):

Another huge aspect of this decision that is not being covered in media coverage--conduct that is protected (i.e. cannot be prosecuted) also can't be used as evidence to prove charges stemming from conduct that is unprotected. Totally hamstrings the prosecution. This is huge.

You know this is bad when the dissents don't end with "respectfully" dissent:

With fear for our democracy, I dissent. [Sotomayor]

In the meantime, because the risks (and power) the Court has now assumed are intolerable, unwarranted, and plainly antithetical to bedrock constitutional norms, I dissent. [Jackson]

Sotomayor dissented from the bench. The Supreme Court does not deign to provide audio or a transcript. Jackson dissented from the bench in today's administrative law case, which received less attention but was still important.

To bring the liberal trifecta (Barrett wrote the administrative case & Roberts the Trump immunity case), Kagan had the middle case involving Texas and Florida laws that targeted social media. All nine justices agreed the litigants aimed too high ("facial challenge").  

A mixed majority went along with some more of Kagan's opinion, including a takedown on the Fifth Circuit. Three conservatives and to a lesser extent Jackson were careful to note the complexity of the issues. They felt the majority went too far into the weeds. 

Kagan crafting together as much of a majority (six justices joined parts of her opinion) was something of a surprise. Many predicted someone else would write the opinion and that it would be more fractured. Anyway, the opinion was the calm in the storm, between two more problematic rulings.

Opinions done. They will hand down a "clean-up" Order List tomorrow. And, then it's summer recess with the usual practice being three summer order lists to quickly address odds and ends that come up before they come back. 

Call to Action 

The Supreme Court reminds us about what should be our focus. Dwelling on a bad debate performance or hoping for unicorns? Not what we should be doing.

First, we need to win in November. 

Second, we need to reaffirm basic values. Justice Jackson's dissent in the Trump immunity case was a philosophical exercise, including the importance of individual accountability and limited presidential power. The administrative law cases also provide us a chance to address basic principles, including the role of Congress and expertise.

Finally, we have to focus on the problems with the Supreme Court. And, this Supreme Court in particular. They have ethical problems. Have too much unlimited power. And, standing pat without statutory and perhaps constitutional change (e.g., term limits) is untenable at this point.

The last part is a long time process. Change also will often require a trifecta (control of the presidency and Congress). We can imagine limited change (e.g., ethical tweaks) without that. Also, control of one house can result in oversight hearings and some pressure. 

An informed citizenry starts now. 

Why Is There A Presidential Debate In June Anyway?

I have been working at the polls for over five years now. My job is checking in voters using a "poll book," which is a little i-pad type device. 

We used to have clunky lever machines, which had certain charms, including an actual curtain. Now, voters fill out a ballot and hand feed it into the scanner. There is also a little used ballot marking machine, which can be used by anyone, particularly those with disabilities.

There was no primary race at the local polling place, so I had to trudge around a half hour to another one. It was in the basement of an apartment building. AOC and the incumbent state assemblyman had basically token opponents. 

The big Bronx (Westchester) race was Jamaal Bowman losing big to some white "pragmatic" candidate who libeled him via offensive campaign ads. Bowman lost his district. The Westchester official fit its brand more. An unfortunate result of local democracy.  

We have early voting now, so it is not surprising that there was limited turnout in my polling place, especially for one smaller than many. We had around 100 voters. Things mostly went without a hitch. A blowhard Republican voter (no candidates) came and acted out a bit.  

I am somewhat refreshed each time by civics in action, even if I have to get there at 5 A.M. and stay there until after 9 P.M. (with two breaks). Let's see how things go in November. It went okay back in 2020.

===

Yes. The title of this entry is a reference to the presidential debate. Many people didn't think it would happen. I hoped it would not.

Trump handled debates in the past. Those who thought he would try to avoid it misjudged things. He can Gish Gallop (spew lies in rapid succession) while looking energic doing so. If it was a real "debate," with careful press handling of things, it might be harder. But it's not. 

The two links are honest accountings. They do not ignore that President Biden looked tired and had a hard time strongly pressing back hard. The importance of debates is far from clear. You still cannot handwave them, especially when your performance furthers the negative frame put on you. 

They also remind us of two things. (1) this is just one debate; it isn't the end of the whole deal. We will have clowns talk about him stepping out. Knew we would have them. Won't happen. Shouldn't happen. 

[This is where we are at. The same person who ridiculed such talk not that long ago posts this after a bad debate. Okay.] 

(2) Bottom line, there is only one sane choice.

And, as another person notes, we have a reason to have faith in that person. If "faith" turns you off, use some other word. His record speaks for itself. His struggle, especially with a cold and overpreparation [it is not like he was bad in each debate in 2020], in this specific setting doesn't change that.

She also notes:

What bothers me most about last night was not Biden’s performance, but rather the anonymous quotes that were coming from the Biden team and supposedly heavy hitters within the Democratic Party. The same people who decided that these debates were an excellent idea decided to tell the press, that they were seriously worried about Biden’s performance and freaking out.

Yes. I checked Talking Points Memo, since in the past that was a useful place to get a summary of a debate as it went on. Right off the bat, it was "oh no!" type stuff. Ditto some online comments. This is typical. Many people really stress out, which is understandable given the stakes.

Still, bottom line, you have to focus. If Trump faltered, would his people publicly shakingly focus on his faults? It's fine to "keep it real" to some extent. But I'm tired of so much doom-ing and doomscrolling-type things. You cannot have that coming from insiders and surrogates! 

I didn't want this damn debate in the first place. Why have a debate in June? I have enough to write about regarding all the shit happening at the Supreme Court. Seriously, there seems to have been a bit where Biden's people (and I guess Biden himself) wanted to turn the tables.

Trump is the one who should be seen as working from a point of weakness. President Biden is in office. He did a lot of great things. A debate, especially since the press will focus on his weaknesses either way, was not going to be a good cost/benefit proposition.  

Anyway, it's done. Other candidates, even Obama, had bad debates. The only sane choice is still President Joe Biden. Why? The alternative is a felon, sexual predator, insurrectionist, and totally incompetent. And the incumbent accomplished so much and is deep down a competent and good person.

Live and learn. Do better next time and win in November. 

Early Voting: Not For Me

We are amid early voting in New York, which started last Saturday. Since it began, I took part, recently in a polling location a few blocks away. There have been three different polling places since it began.

April was the presidential primary. Now, we have the state primaries, including the state and federal legislatures. And, other local races, including some judicial races. I thought my federal representative (Rep. Ritchie "not AOC" Torres) had token opposition, seeing something a few months ago saying as much.

But it looks like I mistook a third-party candidate as his Democratic opponent. No candidate is running in my district. Two responses. (1) I wanted to vote against Torres in the primary. (2) It annoys me more since I usually get to walk a few blocks to serve as a poll worker. Now, I have to trudge somewhere around a half hour away. Plus, this means I do not have my usual comfortable spot. I'm just some newbie filling in. Blah.

This is another result of the New York re-districting follies last time around. There was a lawsuit, the map was declared unconstitutional under the state constitution, and I lost AOC in the process. Her district is under a block away. I have a "pragmatic" liberal now.

Torres is botherwise for two basic reasons. First off, he is over the top regarding Israel. Two notable data points there:

He has made that clear on his personal X account, with half of his posts, retweets or interactions since Oct. 7 being about Israel. Torres’ campaign was among the top recipients for AIPAC contributions, collecting nearly $600,000, according to a review of his campaign filings.

I'm at best wary about the U.S.'s strong support of Israel. I'm sympathetic to those going the other way. Torres takes no prisoners. It is part of the second part about him that annoys me. He comes off as an over-the-top jerk on certain issues. For instance, there is room between not supporting "Defund the Police" and saying something like:

“any elected official who’s advocating for the abolition and/or even the defunding of police is out of touch with reality and should not be taken seriously.”

Then, there was something I flagged on the blog earlier when he compared Assemblywoman Niou's failure to concede in a very close race where the liberals split the opposition vote (the Democratic primary winner received about 26% of the vote) right away. The official count was not out yet. Torres compared her actions to election denial. It's a bullshit reference against someone who was a great liberal voice in the state assembly.

Torres is on the correct side on most things. Nonetheless, his over-the-top take on Israel and acting like an asshole in various ways generally turns me off. A primary vote is a good place to at least symbolically show your opposition. AOC has an opponent. If she was still my representative, I would be five minutes away from the polling place.

Torres gets a profile in the paper and saw some accounts suggesting he thinks he has a big future. If people want to vote blank in the presidential primary to speak their minds on Israel, how about running against Torres? Well, yes, that is somewhat more expensive.

Torres received around 85% of the vote in the general last time. So, if I wanted, it would not be a big deal if I wrote in someone's name or something. Sometimes, voting third party or whatever is okay. Still, I rather not do that, symbolically at least, given the general stakes.

The primary is the time to vote more to the left or right (as appropriate to your tastes). Or, sometimes, just for the best person, wherever they are on the spectrum. It also helps to keep the incumbents somewhat honest, especially when they are (as they often are) in safe districts.  

Oh well. It is a bummer. 

ETA: One striking thing regarding Torres' one-note Israeli policy is that there is a strong Arabic presence in my neighborhood. I assume, if anything, these people are likely more pro-Gaza than pro-Israel.

There are multiple stores with Arabic writing and/or providing Arabic-friendly items. I have also seen more women in full covering, a family of women, or whatever at the supermarket just last night. 

I suppose many of these people are not citizens yet and/or do not vote. Nonetheless, I myself saw one person want to protest on their ballot in the last election. I doubt this was some sort of outlier. I have never seen any reference to this in coverage. But, it is another reason I find his one-note views on the subject so troubling. 

Compare, for instance, President Biden's attempts to show he is supportive of the concerns of Muslims. Yes, I know, not every Muslim or Arab person here will have the same views. But, I'm thinking median position. 

Jamaal Bowman Race

The biggest local race is another "pragmatic" opponent to a strong progressive, Jamaal Bowman. Bowman had a few words against Torres, particularly on Israel. 

I'm tired of watching Bowman's opponent badmouth him as if Bowman was somehow not a Biden supporter because he at times had a dissenting vote on the left as a protest vote when his vote didn't matter. In Biden's Administration, progressives have consistently been reliable. Biden at times had more trouble from the right side of the party.

Chris Hayes had a segment on the funding of the opposition. He shows the vast majority is coming from pro-Israel groups, often funded by conservatives. And, the ads do not talk about Bowman's position on Israel. They focus on Bowman's supposedly not being on Biden's side. 

So, on top of it all, there seems to be some bullshit -- the ads suggest the backers suppose the constituents are not even too upset at Bowman's position on Israel. Hayes did note a smaller funding stream did have ads on Israel. But, this time, the backers are cryptocurrency types. 

Bowman's position on Israel, some more conservative parts of his district, and some mostly vague "missteps" (he got caught pulling a fire alarm supposedly to delay a Republican vote, which is mostly embarrassing) left him vulnerable. Cynical heavy spending (the "most expensive" primary according to Chris Hayes) helped a lot. 

Bowman was on Colbert's show tonight. So, there's that. Colbert's audience gave him loud applause more than once. I will be upset if he loses. the guy he is running against comes off as something of an asshole. 

I am, of course, a bit biased about that. But, he does. It is a heavily blue district -- which is why Bowman can be a strong progressive who dissents from Biden's more median approach (necessarily) sometimes! So, the primary is key. 

Maybe, Bowman will go back to being a school principal.