"I'm not gonna yield, but I'm coming to you right now," he said. And then the U.S. Representative from the Great State of Maryland went all "Jim Jordan" on the U.S. Representative from Texas as he proceeded to rosin up his bow and played our U.S. Constitution like the Stradivarius that it is. Strap in, everybody, Seabiscuit has War Admiral in his sights and he will not be bested:
Readers should take the time to click on the link above to the Twitter video of Jamie Raskin explaining why the "insurrectionist view" of the Second Amendment "is a constitutional joke." The insurrectionist view asserts that the Second Amendment is designed to ensure the right of citizens to take up arms against the government. Raskin notes that the Constitution says exactly the opposite in five places.
And this is exactly why I hope to see a lot more of Jamie Raskin in national office in years to come.
I am also ashamed to say that the Mr. Roy to whom Raskin refers is at present the Representative in the House district in which I reside in Texas. We are doing all we can here to correct that in this fall's election, even though in his present gerrymandered district that is a difficult task.
You can make donations to her directly on her website and also learn more about she and her campaign and positions there.
She has long been a Democratic and Social Justice activist here in South Central Texas and the Austin area. TX21 is a heavily gerrymandered district and she has an uphill fight in her battle to win the TX21 seat. But she does have a lot of support from local Democrats. Unfortunately the national party has not delivered that level of support as they believe her district is presently unwinnable. We are out to prove the national party is wrong about that.
In the 2020 election Roy's Democratic opponent was Wendy Davis, a very strong candidate. However, Roy won the seat as an incumbent by a 52% to 45.4% margin. This further shows that Texas is continues to be a Republican state by a much narrower margin than most understand. Each cycle those margins narrow and the State Republican party further gerrymandered district borders in this election cycle to cement their margins.
However, the enthusiasm of Democrats is high after the last several years and we will continue to eat away at those margins until Texas turns blue. I remind all that if Texas starts voting Democratic in federal Presidential elections due to the number of electoral votes in controls, Republicans will never again occupy the White House.
Robert, another great column with welcome perspective. I want to make a point about your comment on media bias. I’m speaking from the point of view of someone who toiled in the journalistic vineyards for three decades, mostly for Business Week.
A recent poll shows that 4 out of 10 Americans are not engaging with news coverage largely because it’s so relentlessly negative that it’s hard to take. The old journalism mantra is that it is the job of journalists to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. Journalists seem to have forgotten the second part, which can lead to positive stories about what’s being done to comfort the afflicted. The mantra isn’t the problem. It remains a noble calling. The emphasis and execution are the issue.
Stan, thanks. It is an honor to have a former journalist as a reader.
I think my comment about media bias came off more negatively than I intended. The very act of selecting which news to report amplifies and distorts reality; it is unavoidable, even when the reporting is fair and accurate. Which of the following is news: An honest and decent local businessman wins a primary to be a US representative, or a member of the Proud Boys wins a nomination? Obviously the latter. When that happens, EVERY news outlet reports on its, so our email inbox or Twitter feed tells us multiple times that a bad thing happened. The structure of the news business is designed in a way to overemphasize bad news.
But real bias comes into play when an editor says, "Go find every white nationalist who is running in a GOP primary and do a lead article." The journalist goes out and finds five examples and writes a story that says, "White nationalists aim to take over Congress." The reporter leaves out of the story that (a) the white nationalist candidates are 5 out of 3,000 candidates running in primaries and (b) none of them have a snowball's chance in Hades of winning. That is selective bias by the journalist--and is all too common.
A related concern is the decreased emphasis on teaching ethics in our journalism schools. My husband, former NYT and LA Times reporter and now an emeritus prof, taught "Ethics in Journalism" at USC Annenberg for years. The course was discontinued when he retired in 2014. As his colleague Tom Hollihan said, "Ethics in communication, or the lack of them, can mean the difference between news and propaganda."
Regarding your comments, I concur in part and dissent in part.
Re: distortion. If a reporter does enough reporting to get Rashomon-like multiple versions of an event and distills the descriptions fairly and accurately, a reporter can offer a good if not perfect first draft of what happened. Persistence on the Jan, 6 event led to more and more drafts of what happened, which was far different from the initial perceptions.
Technical experts and people who were at a scene may quibble with stories, but the issues should not be material. Fair and accurate is the best we can hope for, rather than objective, because each decision about what to print and the order of the facts in the story is subjective. But fair and accurate is possible.
Re: an election. Both the story about the businessman winning and the story about the Proud Boy winning are stories. The news peg is the election, not the type of winner. Both merit coverage and typically get it.
I am not sure editors would ask a reporter to find every Proud Boy who won without asking the reporter to find every Trump-endorsed candidate who lost. The underlying question is how much influence Trump has over voters. I know reporters write these broader stories because I have seen them.
Re: white nationalist chances. I have seen several stories about Democrats spending money on MAGA primary candidates hoping they will win the primary because the Dems think they can't win the general election. I have seen stories about Trump-backed candidates winning gubernatorial primaries in Pennsylvania and Maryland that include assessments these states would not go for someone on the far right. So I think reporters often do provide proper context. Do all reporters do that every time? I suspect not.
I can be critical about media coverage, as I was in the post people commented on. I think reporters don't write enough about the positive effects on everyday people of Biden domestic policies, and that is a horrendous failure. But I am not cynical enough to believe that the kinds of stories and slants you mentioned are pervasive. They may occur. And people like Marjorie Taylor Green do get elected so you can't rule out the prospect of crazies succeeding. But I think plenty of outlets have stories that cast doubt on that likelihood based on the district or state.
I made up the example regarding a journalist doing a report about the white nationalists running for office. In response to your reply, I googled "white nationalists running for office." This is what I got:
"A record number of white nationalists are running for national office in 2018"
No defense for this story. Eight people is not even close to a rounding error. No discussion of the white nationalists' chances. This is a sloppy quick hit. I would grade it a D at best in journalism school. At least a GOP state party was quoted as denouncing one of the candidates. A Guardian piece has a longer list of far-right candidates, roughly 200, running for office at all levels. It is indeed a story worth writing, the Steve Bannon game plan, but you also need some assessment of whether it will work. Will suburban women vote for them for statewide office? Is there a difference between local, statewide, and national candidates? Will there be ticket splitting and if not, will the GOP get completely whacked because of the radicals' presence or will the radicals help the party by increasing turnout. Running is not winning. Stories about just running are important but not dispositive.
I am told, by my Georgia relations living one district south of Marjorie Taylor Greene's, that Marjorie Taylor Greene got elected because her district pretty much consists of Marjorie Taylor Greenes.
I'm a former journalist too (Newsweek, HBR) and could not agree more. I always felt that practicing journalism without some kind of real training is dangerous, and here we are. Too much "if it bleeds, it leads" without any attention to the real work real people are doing to help stem the disastrous tide.
Agree, and I add to your comment that the line between journalism and social media has become hopelessly blurred. For example, I am not a journalist and would never pretend to be. I comment on what journalists write. I don't mean to diminish what I do, but what real journalists do is much more difficult and fraught with potential for error.
I will only add the observation that one of my own concerns is the level of news literacy exhibited or perhaps the lack of news literacy exhibited by most news consumers. I believe that all should have an obligation as consumers of news to improve their news literacy skills. I am pleased to see the efforts in this regard of the News Literacy Project (https://newslit.org/). I am a strong supporter of their efforts.
Bronwyn, thank you. I’m particularly to this issue because I work for a “repair the world” kind of company that works on everything from COVID-19 for the CDC to
homelessness and guaranteed income to protecting 35 million people from malaria. Our evaluations of programs that work (or don’t) get precious little media attention. My firm is thus an undiscovered jewel because of the dynamic we’re talking about. We have great stories and they’re unknown.
I question whether journalism is still a noble calling. Certainly for a few but for the most part journalists have been co-opted to become tools of the wealthy power brokers who profit from keeping people riled up and divided. There seems to be a political bent to every story, and I don't know of a single news outlet that is not categorized some way on the political spectrum. The days of Cronkite and Morrow are long behind us.
I don't know which poll you are referring to, but I wonder if the reason 40% of Americans are not engaging in news coverage is because they find it 'biased?' There are more negative stories, and it is because of the Republican assault on our democratically held institutions. We learn more every day of the steps and actions Republicans have taken to overthrow the government. The insane former guy abused his power in an effort to stage a coup in the last election. That's big news, and obviously very negative news.
However, where you sit on the political spectrum will dictate your bias and what you think of the story. Writers realize this and write their stories accordingly. The FOX News personalities will spin the story far different than the people at MSNBC. Many people just want the facts and don't like the bias. We are in a post-truth world where an alternate reality is flourishing thanks to a plethora of ignoble journalists.
Chris, Robert has the right link. A lot of my former colleagues are still in the business and your description does not fit them. They are the good guys and there are a lot of them. They are not everyone. I am dismayed that more and more news show hosts on channels such as MSNBC and CNN emulate their competitors on Fox, etc., and give their opinions with alarming regularity. They at least are tethered to facts, but that does not alter the fact that they are injecting their opinions in ways that make me uncomfortable. That said, I do not consider most of the anchors on Fox journalists.
I don't know that NBC, CBS, and ABC demonstrate the same biases that cable networks do. They seem to be pretty straight shooters, but they have declining market shares. Some people have trouble distinguishing bias from facts. Does saying Trump lied 30,000 times display bias or facts? I think the latter, but not everyone would agree with me.
You can put every outlet somewhere on the political spectrum if you choose. Some should be in the middle. I prefer rating outlets by accuracy, as NewsGuard does.
I heartily agree that a big reason for negative news is Trump's destructiveness on so many fronts plus inflation, the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, heat waves and fires, mass shootings--an unrelenting stream of tragic news.
As for spinning, journalists I know don't do that. Fox and MSNBC may well cater to their audiences in the way you suggest. I would refrain from painting journalism with a broad brush., though. Examples of what I would consider journalistic malpractice occur frequently. So do examples of what justify my view of the profession as noble. Why do we know about all of Trump's perversions of government pre-Jan 6? Or what the Sacklers and McKinsey did for the opioid epidemic? Or the global effects of climate change that lead to starvation or the threat of it for hundreds of millions of people? Or that Biden won Arizona (for which the guy who was correct got fired--proving your point at least for Fox)?
Beyond Fox, too many people get their news from social media, a point Robert raised. I like the definition of a journalist as someone who works for an employer with a legal department. Fox is the exception to that rule, though the defamation suits Fox faces over election fraud claims show the value of that definition. Where was Fox's legal department when people were making claims about Dominion and Smartmatic? If the legal department was AWOL, it's like not having one. Which means Fox folks aren't journalists.
Thank you Stan. I respect your perspective (bias) and thank you for annotating your comment with the Reuter's poll and NewsGuard. I note that the Reuter's poll is a report of findings whereas Newsguard is a study in truth and facts. A person of the right-wing persuasion would find it difficult to argue with the Reuter's poll and take exception to NewGuards "portrayal" of the news.
In my original comment, I was trying to point out that you and I and people on the left and right have a bias. Bias is not necessarily bad! The bias I have is an informed opinion based on years of study and application of critical thinking. I'm a progressive and I have good reason to believe in the progressive cause and its mission. To the contrary, my study of conservatives and the alt-right tells me their mission will cause enormous harm to millions of people and destroy democracy. That's my bias Stan and I'm prepared to defend it. No doubt someone on the right could say the same thing about those on the left. People makes choices to believe what they want to believe. This is why the integrity and honesty in the media is of utmost importance.
Most, if not all, people and purveyors of news and opinion have a bias. Their bias is shaped by their world view. So called news organizations, with maybe a rare exception have a bias. Let's take the NYT. Do you think the Times has a bias? They have writers and journalists who present both sides of the story, do they not? You could read the times and say, rightfully so, that there are stories that you find that are accurate and factual. I agree. But in that same week there could be another column relating the same set of facts and reach a different conclusion. Michelle Goldberg and Ross Douthat could both write about the SC ruling that overturns Roe v Wade and their analysis would be diametrically opposite. You could argue that they are both fine journalists, and they may well be, but clearly they are highly biased, even prejudiced and neither is going to present a neutral position. I understand these are opinion columnists and you may discount that but even if you drill down on a news story reporting on the SC decision, Dobbs v Jackson and I think you will find different takes. One is overturning 50 years of established abortion rights and the other is finally overturning 50 years of a abortion rights that should never have been permitted. Same decision, different conclusion. How do you think that should have been reported by a journalist? I'm not going to write a treatise here in the comment section but pick any subject or issue and give me one example of journalism that strictly reports the facts and doesn't have a bias.
News organizations are a business and they understand that to stay in business you have to have paying customers/subscribers. You get customers by carefully attracting and cultivating an audience, i.e. running stories and columns that attract readership. The NYT does it one way and the Wall Street Journal does it another way. I don't know if it makes it easier or not, but the country is largely divided - everyone picks a side. New organization pick a side. Journalists who want to work, need to report on stories in ways that will appeal to their readership and have the approval of their editors. Bias is intrinsic to journalism. Is that the hallmark of noble journalism?
I confess that I haven't watched network news in over a decade, and I stopped watching cable news shows back in 2017 because in both cases the reporting was cursory, sloppy and incomplete. Republicans were portrayed as a political party that simply had a different idea of how the country should be governed. The reporting did not in any way even suggest that Republicans were creating divisions in America by exploiting or hijacking factions who were grievance based. Racists, anti-abortionists, Evangelicals, white supremacists, gun lovers, and anyone who had a grudge against the US government were sucked into the Republican Party which exchanged false promises for votes. Not one news organization exposed the anti-government, anti-American ploy of the Republican Party. I don't remember the majority of noble journalists raising the specter that these elected representatives were disavowing their oath of office and trampling the meaning and intent of the Constitution. The Second Amendment is a case in point. Where was the reporting on the hypocrisy of Republicans claiming that the Democrats were taking away their freedoms while it was the Republicans that were in fact oppressing and suppressing the majority view in America? Where was the reporting on the outrageous mischaracterization of the Democratic Party being a communist, socialist party? I could go on and on. The fact is any rational observer could see that the media portrayed the GOP as a reasonable and rational alternative to the Democratic Party. They were not, but I guess you can chalk that up to my bias.
Enough on this. You have your view of journalism and I have mine. You have not convinced me that there are a lot of good and honorable journalists. The Fourth Estate has not only failed us in these perilous times, but they have profoundly influenced the views of most Americans, and not for the greater good.
Thank goodness for the Robert Hubbell's in the world who seek to provide a clear vision of the day's stories. They have a bias but it is born on an honest appraisal supported with facts and evidence and documentation. They have integrity and they are today's noble journalists. Unfortunately, they are few and far between. Thank you, Robert, for all you do and thank you Stan for giving me an opportunity to articulate my thoughts on the state of the Fourth Estate.
Chips, I hesitate to belabor this, but please forgive the length of this post.
Your are entitled to your opinion, much of which I share, though if you have not watched network or cable news for many years, I wonder what you base your analysis on. But I want to share my experience, which may provide insight for you and others who are on the outside peering in to journalism and speculating on the causes of the effects you see.
I worked for The Wall Street Journal for four years and not once did anyone tell me what to write for the news columns. When I wanted to write an op-ed, the cranks on the editorial page disagreed with a premise, but I got it in as I wanted because I could cite facts. At the Journal there is a separation of church (the editorial page) and state (news columns), in fact sometimes there's animus based on factual disagreements.
I worked for Business Week for 23 years as an editor and reporter. No one ever told me what to write when I was a reporter. I almost exclusively generated my stories based on my reporting. One time a New York editor asked why we had not discovered weapons of mass destruction yet in Iraq, and I looked into that. Another time I was assigned to write a cover story on the IRS for our April 15 issue but was given no direction about the story line. The editor in chief at the time had some bete noires about the IRS, which he introduced into the story. All were demonstrably false or unsupported and I got them out of the story.
I never told a reporter what to write unless the reporter came to me with what he or she had uncovered and wanted some help in framing the story. My advice never contained any political slant. It was just about how to tell the story based on the facts the reporter had found. That is the way journalism should and usually does work.
This is still usually the case. I commend to you The Fourth Estate, a mini-documentary series about the New York Times's coverage of the early Trump Administration. The Times held a story because editors didn't think the reporters had it nailed, and the paper got beat as a result. But it was the right call. Clicks and the audience were not considerations. The consideration was the need to get the facts right and verified so that readers would trust the paper. I don't have a problem with that consideration for the audience.
I suspect that is not the way some outlets today work, however, and I simply refuse to call their products journalism or their staff journalists. They are propagandists. That may be our difference. You call them journalists because they work for a purported news organization. I think they don't. I always thought a journalist was defined as someone who worked for an organization with a legal department. Fox has a legal department, but when it's AWOL, as it apparently was for the Smartmatic and Dominion stories, it may as well not have one. So the best known Fox staff are not journalists if they don't have a functioning legal department.
I never pandered to readers just because a news organization is a business. I got hundreds of letters from readers condemning what I wrote. When I suggested George W. Bush has central auditory processing disorder (CAPD), both the left and right blasted me. Conservatives said I was suggesting Bush was unfit for the Presidency because of his disability (though CAPD has nothing to do with intellectual capacity), and the left said I was providing a sympathetic excuse for Bush, exonerating him from being dumb as a stone. I did neither. The article was a Rorschach test for the readers, and their reactions told more about the readers than the article. People don't believe what they see. They see what they believe.
For a Dobbs story, yes Goldberg and Douhat will reach different conclusions based on the same facts. They have different initial premises. It's fine for columnists to differ. But a news story on the decision should include comments from both those appalled by the decision and those who applaud it. A news story should not take either side, something you suggest is inevitable. I suspect most stories from traditional news organizations incorporated quotations from opponents and supporters of bodily autonomy. (The wording used--terrorist or freedom fighter--is a whole other issue. I don't use the term abortion because it inflames and plays into right-to-lifers' hands.)
Finally, as for no outlets reporting on the transition of the Republican Party, the media poured oceans of ink into stories about the Tea Party, Freedom Caucus, and the difficulty of passing gun control. The media did not ignore what the GOP had become. And during the Trump Administration, the coverage of his destruction of government was constant. We just may be reading different news.
One final point. I am dismayed about the utter failure of the media in some important areas. For example, the discussion of Build Back Better should not have been about numbers, $3.5 trillion or $2 trillion or $1.5 trillion. It should have been about child care subsidies, negotiating drug prices, and all of the hugely popular elements of the bill. Which did Joe Manchin not want for his constituents? Talk about substance for God's sake.
I am not an unblinking supporter of what the press does. I want to give credit where credit is due and blame where it is due. I fear people paint the press with too broad a brush. That is as unfortunate as claiming elections are rigged. We need the public to have confidence in both elections and the press.
Were I asked, I would say that reforming the Electoral Count Act would not be among the top 5 things we need to do to address the complex challenges facing our voting systems today. To be clear, absent comprehensive voter protection safeguards, I worry that Republicans at the local and state levels simply won’t include all the ballots in the certified results, which comes way before we get to counting electors in the chambers of the House and Senate.
I largely base my concerns on Democracy Docket Founder Marc Elias’s portrayal of a Republican election subversion plan he expects will be enacted as early as this fall. Admittedly, Elias is not suggesting that Republican election officials are laying the groundwork blatantly to declare their candidates the winner whether or not the candidate wins enough votes. He views the Republican election subversion plan as more sophisticated than that. Instead, Elias anticipates that Republicans will use “false allegations of fraud as a pretext to remove ballots from the vote totals and then certify those incomplete results.”
Though I don’t doubt that when litigation ensues, Elias and his team will mount arguments whose conclusions can be nailed to the post with confirming evidence, I am not as confident that our courts will stand for the beacons of democracy that we need them to be.
As I said, compared the the JLVRA, the proposed legislation "borders on insulting." But if we can mandate that states must select electors ON election day, we can remove the option of legislatures overturning the will of the people. That's not nothing.
Robert, I don’t follow your thinking. As I understand, just as before, states have until December 14th to certify their elections and award state electors, which gives states ample time “to remove ballots from the vote totals and…certify these incomplete results” (Elias).
And this from Democracy Docket regarding the proposed revision to the ECA:
The bill also aims to ensure that there is one conclusive slate of electors from each state by clarifying unclear language from the original 19th century bill.
If that provision is enacted, it will thwart the ability of state legislatures to substitute "alternate slates" selected after Election Day.
Robert, I understand the bill’s attempt to prevent fake slates of electors from interfering in the process. What I worry about is that Republicans at the local and state levels simply won’t include all the ballots in the certified results.
Congress Has the Power to Combat ISL, but Does It Have the Will?
Points included in the article are as follows:
The Elections Clause gives Congress broad powers to set the rules for federal elections.
Congress has used its powers under the Elections Clause throughout history.
Congress has many options to protect democracy.
But if Congress doesn’t want to enact more sweeping reforms, there are simpler ways lawmakers could counteract the ISL theory. One possibility is simply passing a law that requires state legislatures to follow the constraints set by their state constitutions when drawing new congressional districts and setting federal election rules. Under such a law, any action a state legislature takes over congressional elections that doesn’t comply with their state constitution would be invalid as a matter of federal law — and when federal law conflicts with state law, federal law wins out.
Robert, Unless Dems, this fall, hold the House and pick up at least 2 Senate seats, I worry whether Congress will have the will to enact any constraints on state legislatures. Hence, my reason for prioritizing US House and Senate races along with trying to prevent Republicans in select states from attaining trifecta control—control of both legislative state houses and the governorship.
I haven't seen the text of the bill, so it is difficult to answer your question precisely. But the Dec. 14th date is the "safe harbor" date for resolving lawsuits etc. that relate to the vote taken on Election Day.
As I understand the proposals, the bill will say something like, "Each state shall award its electoral ballots as determined by a popular vote (or other action) that occurs on Election Day." The "certification" process relates to counting votes and dealing with challenges brought after the fact. But under the above language, or something similar, the legislatures could not say on November 20th, "the legislature awards the state's electoral ballots to the candidate who lost the popular vote. " That action would occur AFTER Election Day and would therefore be invalid.
Robert, Absent comprehensive federal voter protection legislation that deals with the complex challenges facing our voting systems today, I would submit that the proposed reforms to the Electoral Count Act, though necessary, are not nearly sufficient enough to protect the right to have one’s vote counted and to have the accurate results certified.
Lynell, I appreciate your reply and merely would amplify the existential threat to democracy were reform of the Electoral Count Act permitted to masquerade as the remedy to the complex challenges facing our voting system.
Exactly, Barbara Jo. My first thought when hearing about the ECA was, as you pointed out, "Great, but what about the Independent State Legislature theory." I
I subscribe to Marc's Democracy Docket, so will look for his email about this.
The proposed reform strikes at the heart of the Independent State Legislature theory by requiring that all electors be chosen ON election day (which is obviously by popular vote, not legislative fiat after the fact). So the proposed reform addresses the ISL directly.
My pleasure, Lynell. Meanwhile, I fear we are subject to a largely uninformed, possibly indifferent, electorate unaware of the stakes were the Court to grant state legislatures this superpower where no one can check what they do.
The ISL is dangerous, but legislatures will ALWAYS be subject to being overridden by Congress in the "time place and manner clause" and by the Constitution in the Appointments Clause. It will NEVER be the case that legislatures have superpowers where no one can check them. The ISL asserts that within the states themselves, the legislatures are superior to state courts and the will of the people. That is shocking and wrong, but it does not assert that the legislatures are above the US Constitution's guarantees of equal protection, due process, and regulation of Congress in the time, place and manner clause.
Also, Moore v. Harper deals only with the "time, place, and manner clause," in which states are expressly subject to being overridden by Congress. The ISL theory relating to the Appointments Clause in NOT on the Supreme Court's docket and raises a myriad of additional constitutional issues. So, Moore v. Harper is very important. But
I just can't believe that Republicans will agree to anything that will jeopardize their long-time goal of achieving minority rule. This is a party that would be on life support if we had completely fair, publicly funded elections on a level playing field in every state all the time.
@ChipsPOV, Agreed. Hence the reason we need to remain laser-focused on the Republican election subversion plan to use the “big lie” as groundwork for seating their candidates whether or not they win enough votes.
Concern over Big Lie candidates winning primaries. I saw where Democratic organizations are supporting the more extreme candidate hoping they will be easier to beat. I personally abhor that. I’m risk averse and don’t want to take the chance that they win. Similarly, I always want the best leader of each party nominated for President. What a shame that went south in 2016. Here is more information on what Democrats are doing:
Does anyone know if Josh Hawley figured in the planning or execution of the January 6 insurrection? Is he still a prominent right-wing leader? Is he involved in the ongoing right-wing attempts to sabotage the 2022 and 2024 elections? Are there other GOP politicians besides the usual suspects that we should keep an eye on?
Beyond the power fist salute and a general orientation that way, I haven't seen or heard any allegations about the junior Senator from MO helping to plan. His participation was more parliamentary as Robert pointed out and he probably doesn't see a need to mess publicly with the process that got him where he is.
I don't know the answer to your question, but recall that Hawley was the first member of Congress to publicly say that he would object to electoral slates from states that Trump lost. I would be surprised if that was a coincidence, but I do not have any information to back up my hunch.
Nor do I, although Hawley is brighter than his behavior suggests and is quite capable of hiding his involvement. My guess, based on his high level of self-regard, is that he simply saw an opportunity to perform and took it. At the time and still, there was very little downside to his actions either public or in the Senate.
This is almost petty but it annoys me every time the news reports that Congress “certifies” the Electoral College votes. The correct word is “confirm”. The votes have already been certified by the Electoral College and Congress meets so those votes can be confirmed. I’m happy that there is a bill to clarify Congress’s role in our election but disgusted that Manchin gets credit for this after obstruction of the John Lewis Voting Act that went much further in protecting voting
You are right that Congress does not "certify" the electoral votes. In fact, the Constitution uses the word "count." Here is the 12th Amendment's provision: the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
Let us not forget that in the last two presidential elections Trump lost the popular vote twice and the electoral vote once. His viability as a candidate is far less now than it was then. He retains the authoritarian caucus. I recently read that many people are born with authoritarian tendency. I suppose they have always been there and always will be. Some cannot think for themselves.
You got to know when to say "yes". The "Electoral Count Act" is a first step, but a useful step, in making firmer boundaries around our voting process. I do hope the more progressive factions in the Dems don't sacrifice the good for the perfect.
The plaintiff in Moore v Harper is the Speaker of the NC House of Representatives. This independent legislature theory is bogus because it doesn’t include the next part of the text saying Congress can determine rules regarding elections. Tim Moore is a power hungry corrupt politician whose actions damage NC and the country. He is trying this frivolous lawsuit to see if the corrupt court will let it stick to the wall. He has no good intentions here. He is part of the group who brought the power grabbing HB2 bathroom bill to a vote in the dead of night. These regressive Republicans are out to HURT people; the next group could be yours.
Yes, the ISL theory in Moore relates to the time, place, and manner clause, where state legislatures are expressly subject to being overridden by Congress. Moore is claiming that the NC legislature is exempt from regulation by NC courts. That is a limited version of the ISL.
@JennSH, In my view, the independent legislature theory is not “bogus” because, while state legislatures are not exempt from federal regulations, as we saw with the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, enforcing federal regulations requires either reaching the Senate’s 60-vote threshold or modifying the Senate filibuster rule to allow for debate and an up or down majority vote.
Glad to hear some hope in today's letter. We just have to be like the "little train that could", "I think I can I think I can". At a recent Gay event we recruited a good numbers of new voters and convinced some 17 year olds to register and to register for Vote By Mail, preparing them for 2024 participation. Need to convince even those on our "side" to make sure they vote and not give in to negative thoughts.
Ahmen to the comments on Trump’s current “powers”. Even tho as Liz Cheney said, Trump’s a 76 yr old man not an impressionable child, he’s also not a constant winner. And today his losses are mounting!
How often do we need to say that politics is the art of the possible? It is possible, now, to amend the Electoral Count Act in modest, but worthwhile ways. Can Democrats say, “No-brainer?”
But nobody mentions the reason why so many republicans buy the bull Schitt. Rupert Murdoch spews crap 24/7. While reading your suggestions for reading people who slice and dice the current situation, I understand the allure of the sound bites. Don’t buy them but, oh, so tempting for the cult and those whose brains are busy surviving.
"I'm not gonna yield, but I'm coming to you right now," he said. And then the U.S. Representative from the Great State of Maryland went all "Jim Jordan" on the U.S. Representative from Texas as he proceeded to rosin up his bow and played our U.S. Constitution like the Stradivarius that it is. Strap in, everybody, Seabiscuit has War Admiral in his sights and he will not be bested:
https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1549806878389022720?s=20&t=OZe4rvcs6USOzY0lOJjSbg
Readers should take the time to click on the link above to the Twitter video of Jamie Raskin explaining why the "insurrectionist view" of the Second Amendment "is a constitutional joke." The insurrectionist view asserts that the Second Amendment is designed to ensure the right of citizens to take up arms against the government. Raskin notes that the Constitution says exactly the opposite in five places.
Raskin giving a master class in the Constitution. (A former professor of constitutional law.)
Perhaps he should offer an extended seminar to his colleagues and Senators, many of whom apparently missed the basic Constitutional law class.
Of course, all too many of his colleagues and Senators oppose the Constitution.
And have apparently forgotten a basic lesson in tactics, 'Know your opponent'.
AHa.
And this is exactly why I hope to see a lot more of Jamie Raskin in national office in years to come.
I am also ashamed to say that the Mr. Roy to whom Raskin refers is at present the Representative in the House district in which I reside in Texas. We are doing all we can here to correct that in this fall's election, even though in his present gerrymandered district that is a difficult task.
Bruce: Whose race can we contribute to in order to defeat him?
The Democratic opponent of Chip Roy for Texas 21 in this fall's election is Claudia Zapata. You can find her website here:
https://www.conclaudia.com/
and here on Ballotpedia: https://ballotpedia.org/Claudia_Zapata#Campaign_themes
You can make donations to her directly on her website and also learn more about she and her campaign and positions there.
She has long been a Democratic and Social Justice activist here in South Central Texas and the Austin area. TX21 is a heavily gerrymandered district and she has an uphill fight in her battle to win the TX21 seat. But she does have a lot of support from local Democrats. Unfortunately the national party has not delivered that level of support as they believe her district is presently unwinnable. We are out to prove the national party is wrong about that.
In the 2020 election Roy's Democratic opponent was Wendy Davis, a very strong candidate. However, Roy won the seat as an incumbent by a 52% to 45.4% margin. This further shows that Texas is continues to be a Republican state by a much narrower margin than most understand. Each cycle those margins narrow and the State Republican party further gerrymandered district borders in this election cycle to cement their margins.
However, the enthusiasm of Democrats is high after the last several years and we will continue to eat away at those margins until Texas turns blue. I remind all that if Texas starts voting Democratic in federal Presidential elections due to the number of electoral votes in controls, Republicans will never again occupy the White House.
Thank You!
The video is excellent, so is the lesson if it is learned.
He is a treasure.
Twitter must be on fire with this link! I had trouble loading it. Thanks for sharing. Raskin is a hero, IMO.
Hey, Ellen. Were you able to see it, eventually? Hope so.
Yes, thank you! It took several tries. I have a feeling I was among many millions seeking to view it!
Excellent!
Thanks Lynell! Man! I'd like to see the gentleman as POTUS one day.
Sending him more $
That was awesome. Thanks Lynell.
Love him!! Thanks a bunch, Lynell!
Should be Man/Person of the Year and Presidential Medal of Freedom recipient!
Agree!!!
Robert, another great column with welcome perspective. I want to make a point about your comment on media bias. I’m speaking from the point of view of someone who toiled in the journalistic vineyards for three decades, mostly for Business Week.
A recent poll shows that 4 out of 10 Americans are not engaging with news coverage largely because it’s so relentlessly negative that it’s hard to take. The old journalism mantra is that it is the job of journalists to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. Journalists seem to have forgotten the second part, which can lead to positive stories about what’s being done to comfort the afflicted. The mantra isn’t the problem. It remains a noble calling. The emphasis and execution are the issue.
Stan, thanks. It is an honor to have a former journalist as a reader.
I think my comment about media bias came off more negatively than I intended. The very act of selecting which news to report amplifies and distorts reality; it is unavoidable, even when the reporting is fair and accurate. Which of the following is news: An honest and decent local businessman wins a primary to be a US representative, or a member of the Proud Boys wins a nomination? Obviously the latter. When that happens, EVERY news outlet reports on its, so our email inbox or Twitter feed tells us multiple times that a bad thing happened. The structure of the news business is designed in a way to overemphasize bad news.
But real bias comes into play when an editor says, "Go find every white nationalist who is running in a GOP primary and do a lead article." The journalist goes out and finds five examples and writes a story that says, "White nationalists aim to take over Congress." The reporter leaves out of the story that (a) the white nationalist candidates are 5 out of 3,000 candidates running in primaries and (b) none of them have a snowball's chance in Hades of winning. That is selective bias by the journalist--and is all too common.
A related concern is the decreased emphasis on teaching ethics in our journalism schools. My husband, former NYT and LA Times reporter and now an emeritus prof, taught "Ethics in Journalism" at USC Annenberg for years. The course was discontinued when he retired in 2014. As his colleague Tom Hollihan said, "Ethics in communication, or the lack of them, can mean the difference between news and propaganda."
amen to that.
Yup!
Robert,
You are too kind.
Regarding your comments, I concur in part and dissent in part.
Re: distortion. If a reporter does enough reporting to get Rashomon-like multiple versions of an event and distills the descriptions fairly and accurately, a reporter can offer a good if not perfect first draft of what happened. Persistence on the Jan, 6 event led to more and more drafts of what happened, which was far different from the initial perceptions.
Technical experts and people who were at a scene may quibble with stories, but the issues should not be material. Fair and accurate is the best we can hope for, rather than objective, because each decision about what to print and the order of the facts in the story is subjective. But fair and accurate is possible.
Re: an election. Both the story about the businessman winning and the story about the Proud Boy winning are stories. The news peg is the election, not the type of winner. Both merit coverage and typically get it.
I am not sure editors would ask a reporter to find every Proud Boy who won without asking the reporter to find every Trump-endorsed candidate who lost. The underlying question is how much influence Trump has over voters. I know reporters write these broader stories because I have seen them.
Re: white nationalist chances. I have seen several stories about Democrats spending money on MAGA primary candidates hoping they will win the primary because the Dems think they can't win the general election. I have seen stories about Trump-backed candidates winning gubernatorial primaries in Pennsylvania and Maryland that include assessments these states would not go for someone on the far right. So I think reporters often do provide proper context. Do all reporters do that every time? I suspect not.
I can be critical about media coverage, as I was in the post people commented on. I think reporters don't write enough about the positive effects on everyday people of Biden domestic policies, and that is a horrendous failure. But I am not cynical enough to believe that the kinds of stories and slants you mentioned are pervasive. They may occur. And people like Marjorie Taylor Green do get elected so you can't rule out the prospect of crazies succeeding. But I think plenty of outlets have stories that cast doubt on that likelihood based on the district or state.
Stan
I made up the example regarding a journalist doing a report about the white nationalists running for office. In response to your reply, I googled "white nationalists running for office." This is what I got:
"A record number of white nationalists are running for national office in 2018"
see link https://www.businessinsider.com/white-nationalists-running-for-office-in-2018-2018-5
I will let you decide whether the journalist gave appropriate context.
No defense for this story. Eight people is not even close to a rounding error. No discussion of the white nationalists' chances. This is a sloppy quick hit. I would grade it a D at best in journalism school. At least a GOP state party was quoted as denouncing one of the candidates. A Guardian piece has a longer list of far-right candidates, roughly 200, running for office at all levels. It is indeed a story worth writing, the Steve Bannon game plan, but you also need some assessment of whether it will work. Will suburban women vote for them for statewide office? Is there a difference between local, statewide, and national candidates? Will there be ticket splitting and if not, will the GOP get completely whacked because of the radicals' presence or will the radicals help the party by increasing turnout. Running is not winning. Stories about just running are important but not dispositive.
Thank you for the journalistic analysis! Troubling. I am thrilled, though, to think Business Insider is concerned about white nationalists.
I am told, by my Georgia relations living one district south of Marjorie Taylor Greene's, that Marjorie Taylor Greene got elected because her district pretty much consists of Marjorie Taylor Greenes.
I'm a former journalist too (Newsweek, HBR) and could not agree more. I always felt that practicing journalism without some kind of real training is dangerous, and here we are. Too much "if it bleeds, it leads" without any attention to the real work real people are doing to help stem the disastrous tide.
Agree, and I add to your comment that the line between journalism and social media has become hopelessly blurred. For example, I am not a journalist and would never pretend to be. I comment on what journalists write. I don't mean to diminish what I do, but what real journalists do is much more difficult and fraught with potential for error.
I will only add the observation that one of my own concerns is the level of news literacy exhibited or perhaps the lack of news literacy exhibited by most news consumers. I believe that all should have an obligation as consumers of news to improve their news literacy skills. I am pleased to see the efforts in this regard of the News Literacy Project (https://newslit.org/). I am a strong supporter of their efforts.
Agreed.
Bronwyn, thank you. I’m particularly to this issue because I work for a “repair the world” kind of company that works on everything from COVID-19 for the CDC to
homelessness and guaranteed income to protecting 35 million people from malaria. Our evaluations of programs that work (or don’t) get precious little media attention. My firm is thus an undiscovered jewel because of the dynamic we’re talking about. We have great stories and they’re unknown.
Good for you, Stan! What is this company?
Any Associates. Any is not an acronym. The founder is a polymath, Clark Abt, a remarkable individual.
I question whether journalism is still a noble calling. Certainly for a few but for the most part journalists have been co-opted to become tools of the wealthy power brokers who profit from keeping people riled up and divided. There seems to be a political bent to every story, and I don't know of a single news outlet that is not categorized some way on the political spectrum. The days of Cronkite and Morrow are long behind us.
I don't know which poll you are referring to, but I wonder if the reason 40% of Americans are not engaging in news coverage is because they find it 'biased?' There are more negative stories, and it is because of the Republican assault on our democratically held institutions. We learn more every day of the steps and actions Republicans have taken to overthrow the government. The insane former guy abused his power in an effort to stage a coup in the last election. That's big news, and obviously very negative news.
However, where you sit on the political spectrum will dictate your bias and what you think of the story. Writers realize this and write their stories accordingly. The FOX News personalities will spin the story far different than the people at MSNBC. Many people just want the facts and don't like the bias. We are in a post-truth world where an alternate reality is flourishing thanks to a plethora of ignoble journalists.
Here is the poll referred to in this string: Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2022
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2022-06/Digital_News-Report_2022.pdf
Chris, Robert has the right link. A lot of my former colleagues are still in the business and your description does not fit them. They are the good guys and there are a lot of them. They are not everyone. I am dismayed that more and more news show hosts on channels such as MSNBC and CNN emulate their competitors on Fox, etc., and give their opinions with alarming regularity. They at least are tethered to facts, but that does not alter the fact that they are injecting their opinions in ways that make me uncomfortable. That said, I do not consider most of the anchors on Fox journalists.
I don't know that NBC, CBS, and ABC demonstrate the same biases that cable networks do. They seem to be pretty straight shooters, but they have declining market shares. Some people have trouble distinguishing bias from facts. Does saying Trump lied 30,000 times display bias or facts? I think the latter, but not everyone would agree with me.
You can put every outlet somewhere on the political spectrum if you choose. Some should be in the middle. I prefer rating outlets by accuracy, as NewsGuard does.
I heartily agree that a big reason for negative news is Trump's destructiveness on so many fronts plus inflation, the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, heat waves and fires, mass shootings--an unrelenting stream of tragic news.
As for spinning, journalists I know don't do that. Fox and MSNBC may well cater to their audiences in the way you suggest. I would refrain from painting journalism with a broad brush., though. Examples of what I would consider journalistic malpractice occur frequently. So do examples of what justify my view of the profession as noble. Why do we know about all of Trump's perversions of government pre-Jan 6? Or what the Sacklers and McKinsey did for the opioid epidemic? Or the global effects of climate change that lead to starvation or the threat of it for hundreds of millions of people? Or that Biden won Arizona (for which the guy who was correct got fired--proving your point at least for Fox)?
Beyond Fox, too many people get their news from social media, a point Robert raised. I like the definition of a journalist as someone who works for an employer with a legal department. Fox is the exception to that rule, though the defamation suits Fox faces over election fraud claims show the value of that definition. Where was Fox's legal department when people were making claims about Dominion and Smartmatic? If the legal department was AWOL, it's like not having one. Which means Fox folks aren't journalists.
Thank you Stan. I respect your perspective (bias) and thank you for annotating your comment with the Reuter's poll and NewsGuard. I note that the Reuter's poll is a report of findings whereas Newsguard is a study in truth and facts. A person of the right-wing persuasion would find it difficult to argue with the Reuter's poll and take exception to NewGuards "portrayal" of the news.
In my original comment, I was trying to point out that you and I and people on the left and right have a bias. Bias is not necessarily bad! The bias I have is an informed opinion based on years of study and application of critical thinking. I'm a progressive and I have good reason to believe in the progressive cause and its mission. To the contrary, my study of conservatives and the alt-right tells me their mission will cause enormous harm to millions of people and destroy democracy. That's my bias Stan and I'm prepared to defend it. No doubt someone on the right could say the same thing about those on the left. People makes choices to believe what they want to believe. This is why the integrity and honesty in the media is of utmost importance.
Most, if not all, people and purveyors of news and opinion have a bias. Their bias is shaped by their world view. So called news organizations, with maybe a rare exception have a bias. Let's take the NYT. Do you think the Times has a bias? They have writers and journalists who present both sides of the story, do they not? You could read the times and say, rightfully so, that there are stories that you find that are accurate and factual. I agree. But in that same week there could be another column relating the same set of facts and reach a different conclusion. Michelle Goldberg and Ross Douthat could both write about the SC ruling that overturns Roe v Wade and their analysis would be diametrically opposite. You could argue that they are both fine journalists, and they may well be, but clearly they are highly biased, even prejudiced and neither is going to present a neutral position. I understand these are opinion columnists and you may discount that but even if you drill down on a news story reporting on the SC decision, Dobbs v Jackson and I think you will find different takes. One is overturning 50 years of established abortion rights and the other is finally overturning 50 years of a abortion rights that should never have been permitted. Same decision, different conclusion. How do you think that should have been reported by a journalist? I'm not going to write a treatise here in the comment section but pick any subject or issue and give me one example of journalism that strictly reports the facts and doesn't have a bias.
News organizations are a business and they understand that to stay in business you have to have paying customers/subscribers. You get customers by carefully attracting and cultivating an audience, i.e. running stories and columns that attract readership. The NYT does it one way and the Wall Street Journal does it another way. I don't know if it makes it easier or not, but the country is largely divided - everyone picks a side. New organization pick a side. Journalists who want to work, need to report on stories in ways that will appeal to their readership and have the approval of their editors. Bias is intrinsic to journalism. Is that the hallmark of noble journalism?
I confess that I haven't watched network news in over a decade, and I stopped watching cable news shows back in 2017 because in both cases the reporting was cursory, sloppy and incomplete. Republicans were portrayed as a political party that simply had a different idea of how the country should be governed. The reporting did not in any way even suggest that Republicans were creating divisions in America by exploiting or hijacking factions who were grievance based. Racists, anti-abortionists, Evangelicals, white supremacists, gun lovers, and anyone who had a grudge against the US government were sucked into the Republican Party which exchanged false promises for votes. Not one news organization exposed the anti-government, anti-American ploy of the Republican Party. I don't remember the majority of noble journalists raising the specter that these elected representatives were disavowing their oath of office and trampling the meaning and intent of the Constitution. The Second Amendment is a case in point. Where was the reporting on the hypocrisy of Republicans claiming that the Democrats were taking away their freedoms while it was the Republicans that were in fact oppressing and suppressing the majority view in America? Where was the reporting on the outrageous mischaracterization of the Democratic Party being a communist, socialist party? I could go on and on. The fact is any rational observer could see that the media portrayed the GOP as a reasonable and rational alternative to the Democratic Party. They were not, but I guess you can chalk that up to my bias.
Enough on this. You have your view of journalism and I have mine. You have not convinced me that there are a lot of good and honorable journalists. The Fourth Estate has not only failed us in these perilous times, but they have profoundly influenced the views of most Americans, and not for the greater good.
Thank goodness for the Robert Hubbell's in the world who seek to provide a clear vision of the day's stories. They have a bias but it is born on an honest appraisal supported with facts and evidence and documentation. They have integrity and they are today's noble journalists. Unfortunately, they are few and far between. Thank you, Robert, for all you do and thank you Stan for giving me an opportunity to articulate my thoughts on the state of the Fourth Estate.
Chips, I hesitate to belabor this, but please forgive the length of this post.
Your are entitled to your opinion, much of which I share, though if you have not watched network or cable news for many years, I wonder what you base your analysis on. But I want to share my experience, which may provide insight for you and others who are on the outside peering in to journalism and speculating on the causes of the effects you see.
I worked for The Wall Street Journal for four years and not once did anyone tell me what to write for the news columns. When I wanted to write an op-ed, the cranks on the editorial page disagreed with a premise, but I got it in as I wanted because I could cite facts. At the Journal there is a separation of church (the editorial page) and state (news columns), in fact sometimes there's animus based on factual disagreements.
I worked for Business Week for 23 years as an editor and reporter. No one ever told me what to write when I was a reporter. I almost exclusively generated my stories based on my reporting. One time a New York editor asked why we had not discovered weapons of mass destruction yet in Iraq, and I looked into that. Another time I was assigned to write a cover story on the IRS for our April 15 issue but was given no direction about the story line. The editor in chief at the time had some bete noires about the IRS, which he introduced into the story. All were demonstrably false or unsupported and I got them out of the story.
I never told a reporter what to write unless the reporter came to me with what he or she had uncovered and wanted some help in framing the story. My advice never contained any political slant. It was just about how to tell the story based on the facts the reporter had found. That is the way journalism should and usually does work.
This is still usually the case. I commend to you The Fourth Estate, a mini-documentary series about the New York Times's coverage of the early Trump Administration. The Times held a story because editors didn't think the reporters had it nailed, and the paper got beat as a result. But it was the right call. Clicks and the audience were not considerations. The consideration was the need to get the facts right and verified so that readers would trust the paper. I don't have a problem with that consideration for the audience.
I suspect that is not the way some outlets today work, however, and I simply refuse to call their products journalism or their staff journalists. They are propagandists. That may be our difference. You call them journalists because they work for a purported news organization. I think they don't. I always thought a journalist was defined as someone who worked for an organization with a legal department. Fox has a legal department, but when it's AWOL, as it apparently was for the Smartmatic and Dominion stories, it may as well not have one. So the best known Fox staff are not journalists if they don't have a functioning legal department.
I never pandered to readers just because a news organization is a business. I got hundreds of letters from readers condemning what I wrote. When I suggested George W. Bush has central auditory processing disorder (CAPD), both the left and right blasted me. Conservatives said I was suggesting Bush was unfit for the Presidency because of his disability (though CAPD has nothing to do with intellectual capacity), and the left said I was providing a sympathetic excuse for Bush, exonerating him from being dumb as a stone. I did neither. The article was a Rorschach test for the readers, and their reactions told more about the readers than the article. People don't believe what they see. They see what they believe.
For a Dobbs story, yes Goldberg and Douhat will reach different conclusions based on the same facts. They have different initial premises. It's fine for columnists to differ. But a news story on the decision should include comments from both those appalled by the decision and those who applaud it. A news story should not take either side, something you suggest is inevitable. I suspect most stories from traditional news organizations incorporated quotations from opponents and supporters of bodily autonomy. (The wording used--terrorist or freedom fighter--is a whole other issue. I don't use the term abortion because it inflames and plays into right-to-lifers' hands.)
Finally, as for no outlets reporting on the transition of the Republican Party, the media poured oceans of ink into stories about the Tea Party, Freedom Caucus, and the difficulty of passing gun control. The media did not ignore what the GOP had become. And during the Trump Administration, the coverage of his destruction of government was constant. We just may be reading different news.
One final point. I am dismayed about the utter failure of the media in some important areas. For example, the discussion of Build Back Better should not have been about numbers, $3.5 trillion or $2 trillion or $1.5 trillion. It should have been about child care subsidies, negotiating drug prices, and all of the hugely popular elements of the bill. Which did Joe Manchin not want for his constituents? Talk about substance for God's sake.
I am not an unblinking supporter of what the press does. I want to give credit where credit is due and blame where it is due. I fear people paint the press with too broad a brush. That is as unfortunate as claiming elections are rigged. We need the public to have confidence in both elections and the press.
Regards,
Stan
Were I asked, I would say that reforming the Electoral Count Act would not be among the top 5 things we need to do to address the complex challenges facing our voting systems today. To be clear, absent comprehensive voter protection safeguards, I worry that Republicans at the local and state levels simply won’t include all the ballots in the certified results, which comes way before we get to counting electors in the chambers of the House and Senate.
I largely base my concerns on Democracy Docket Founder Marc Elias’s portrayal of a Republican election subversion plan he expects will be enacted as early as this fall. Admittedly, Elias is not suggesting that Republican election officials are laying the groundwork blatantly to declare their candidates the winner whether or not the candidate wins enough votes. He views the Republican election subversion plan as more sophisticated than that. Instead, Elias anticipates that Republicans will use “false allegations of fraud as a pretext to remove ballots from the vote totals and then certify those incomplete results.”
Though I don’t doubt that when litigation ensues, Elias and his team will mount arguments whose conclusions can be nailed to the post with confirming evidence, I am not as confident that our courts will stand for the beacons of democracy that we need them to be.
As I said, compared the the JLVRA, the proposed legislation "borders on insulting." But if we can mandate that states must select electors ON election day, we can remove the option of legislatures overturning the will of the people. That's not nothing.
Robert, I don’t follow your thinking. As I understand, just as before, states have until December 14th to certify their elections and award state electors, which gives states ample time “to remove ballots from the vote totals and…certify these incomplete results” (Elias).
And this from Democracy Docket regarding the proposed revision to the ECA:
The bill also aims to ensure that there is one conclusive slate of electors from each state by clarifying unclear language from the original 19th century bill.
If that provision is enacted, it will thwart the ability of state legislatures to substitute "alternate slates" selected after Election Day.
Robert, I understand the bill’s attempt to prevent fake slates of electors from interfering in the process. What I worry about is that Republicans at the local and state levels simply won’t include all the ballots in the certified results.
I think this article from Democracy Docket makes the point I am trying to convey about Moore v. Harper (the time, place, manner clause):
https://www.democracydocket.com/news/congress-has-the-power-to-combat-isl-but-does-it-have-the-will/
Congress Has the Power to Combat ISL, but Does It Have the Will?
Points included in the article are as follows:
The Elections Clause gives Congress broad powers to set the rules for federal elections.
Congress has used its powers under the Elections Clause throughout history.
Congress has many options to protect democracy.
But if Congress doesn’t want to enact more sweeping reforms, there are simpler ways lawmakers could counteract the ISL theory. One possibility is simply passing a law that requires state legislatures to follow the constraints set by their state constitutions when drawing new congressional districts and setting federal election rules. Under such a law, any action a state legislature takes over congressional elections that doesn’t comply with their state constitution would be invalid as a matter of federal law — and when federal law conflicts with state law, federal law wins out.
Robert, Unless Dems, this fall, hold the House and pick up at least 2 Senate seats, I worry whether Congress will have the will to enact any constraints on state legislatures. Hence, my reason for prioritizing US House and Senate races along with trying to prevent Republicans in select states from attaining trifecta control—control of both legislative state houses and the governorship.
I haven't seen the text of the bill, so it is difficult to answer your question precisely. But the Dec. 14th date is the "safe harbor" date for resolving lawsuits etc. that relate to the vote taken on Election Day.
As I understand the proposals, the bill will say something like, "Each state shall award its electoral ballots as determined by a popular vote (or other action) that occurs on Election Day." The "certification" process relates to counting votes and dealing with challenges brought after the fact. But under the above language, or something similar, the legislatures could not say on November 20th, "the legislature awards the state's electoral ballots to the candidate who lost the popular vote. " That action would occur AFTER Election Day and would therefore be invalid.
Robert, Absent comprehensive federal voter protection legislation that deals with the complex challenges facing our voting systems today, I would submit that the proposed reforms to the Electoral Count Act, though necessary, are not nearly sufficient enough to protect the right to have one’s vote counted and to have the accurate results certified.
Robert, Please disregard the original and see the edited version.
I echo your concerns, Barbara Jo. Thanks for pointing them out.
Lynell, I appreciate your reply and merely would amplify the existential threat to democracy were reform of the Electoral Count Act permitted to masquerade as the remedy to the complex challenges facing our voting system.
Exactly, Barbara Jo. My first thought when hearing about the ECA was, as you pointed out, "Great, but what about the Independent State Legislature theory." I
I subscribe to Marc's Democracy Docket, so will look for his email about this.
Thanks, again!
The proposed reform strikes at the heart of the Independent State Legislature theory by requiring that all electors be chosen ON election day (which is obviously by popular vote, not legislative fiat after the fact). So the proposed reform addresses the ISL directly.
My pleasure, Lynell. Meanwhile, I fear we are subject to a largely uninformed, possibly indifferent, electorate unaware of the stakes were the Court to grant state legislatures this superpower where no one can check what they do.
The ISL is dangerous, but legislatures will ALWAYS be subject to being overridden by Congress in the "time place and manner clause" and by the Constitution in the Appointments Clause. It will NEVER be the case that legislatures have superpowers where no one can check them. The ISL asserts that within the states themselves, the legislatures are superior to state courts and the will of the people. That is shocking and wrong, but it does not assert that the legislatures are above the US Constitution's guarantees of equal protection, due process, and regulation of Congress in the time, place and manner clause.
Also, Moore v. Harper deals only with the "time, place, and manner clause," in which states are expressly subject to being overridden by Congress. The ISL theory relating to the Appointments Clause in NOT on the Supreme Court's docket and raises a myriad of additional constitutional issues. So, Moore v. Harper is very important. But
Robert, I want to respond, but it will have to wait until later tonight.
Grrr...
I just can't believe that Republicans will agree to anything that will jeopardize their long-time goal of achieving minority rule. This is a party that would be on life support if we had completely fair, publicly funded elections on a level playing field in every state all the time.
@ChipsPOV, Agreed. Hence the reason we need to remain laser-focused on the Republican election subversion plan to use the “big lie” as groundwork for seating their candidates whether or not they win enough votes.
Concern over Big Lie candidates winning primaries. I saw where Democratic organizations are supporting the more extreme candidate hoping they will be easier to beat. I personally abhor that. I’m risk averse and don’t want to take the chance that they win. Similarly, I always want the best leader of each party nominated for President. What a shame that went south in 2016. Here is more information on what Democrats are doing:
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/27/1106859552/primary-illinois-colorado-republican-candidate-democrats-ads
https://twitter.com/GraceAl38236563/status/1549807318220476416?s=20&t=aiOFHMCoQ4IDkNoYIs1DhQ
Another barn burner, go get ‘em
Yes. That is utterly immoral. What are Dems thinking?
Does anyone know if Josh Hawley figured in the planning or execution of the January 6 insurrection? Is he still a prominent right-wing leader? Is he involved in the ongoing right-wing attempts to sabotage the 2022 and 2024 elections? Are there other GOP politicians besides the usual suspects that we should keep an eye on?
Beyond the power fist salute and a general orientation that way, I haven't seen or heard any allegations about the junior Senator from MO helping to plan. His participation was more parliamentary as Robert pointed out and he probably doesn't see a need to mess publicly with the process that got him where he is.
I don't know the answer to your question, but recall that Hawley was the first member of Congress to publicly say that he would object to electoral slates from states that Trump lost. I would be surprised if that was a coincidence, but I do not have any information to back up my hunch.
Nor do I, although Hawley is brighter than his behavior suggests and is quite capable of hiding his involvement. My guess, based on his high level of self-regard, is that he simply saw an opportunity to perform and took it. At the time and still, there was very little downside to his actions either public or in the Senate.
Your hunches are usually spot-on.
Thank you for this info.
This is almost petty but it annoys me every time the news reports that Congress “certifies” the Electoral College votes. The correct word is “confirm”. The votes have already been certified by the Electoral College and Congress meets so those votes can be confirmed. I’m happy that there is a bill to clarify Congress’s role in our election but disgusted that Manchin gets credit for this after obstruction of the John Lewis Voting Act that went much further in protecting voting
You are right that Congress does not "certify" the electoral votes. In fact, the Constitution uses the word "count." Here is the 12th Amendment's provision: the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
Let us not forget that in the last two presidential elections Trump lost the popular vote twice and the electoral vote once. His viability as a candidate is far less now than it was then. He retains the authoritarian caucus. I recently read that many people are born with authoritarian tendency. I suppose they have always been there and always will be. Some cannot think for themselves.
You got to know when to say "yes". The "Electoral Count Act" is a first step, but a useful step, in making firmer boundaries around our voting process. I do hope the more progressive factions in the Dems don't sacrifice the good for the perfect.
The plaintiff in Moore v Harper is the Speaker of the NC House of Representatives. This independent legislature theory is bogus because it doesn’t include the next part of the text saying Congress can determine rules regarding elections. Tim Moore is a power hungry corrupt politician whose actions damage NC and the country. He is trying this frivolous lawsuit to see if the corrupt court will let it stick to the wall. He has no good intentions here. He is part of the group who brought the power grabbing HB2 bathroom bill to a vote in the dead of night. These regressive Republicans are out to HURT people; the next group could be yours.
Yes, the ISL theory in Moore relates to the time, place, and manner clause, where state legislatures are expressly subject to being overridden by Congress. Moore is claiming that the NC legislature is exempt from regulation by NC courts. That is a limited version of the ISL.
@JennSH, In my view, the independent legislature theory is not “bogus” because, while state legislatures are not exempt from federal regulations, as we saw with the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, enforcing federal regulations requires either reaching the Senate’s 60-vote threshold or modifying the Senate filibuster rule to allow for debate and an up or down majority vote.
Glad to hear some hope in today's letter. We just have to be like the "little train that could", "I think I can I think I can". At a recent Gay event we recruited a good numbers of new voters and convinced some 17 year olds to register and to register for Vote By Mail, preparing them for 2024 participation. Need to convince even those on our "side" to make sure they vote and not give in to negative thoughts.
Ahmen to the comments on Trump’s current “powers”. Even tho as Liz Cheney said, Trump’s a 76 yr old man not an impressionable child, he’s also not a constant winner. And today his losses are mounting!
How often do we need to say that politics is the art of the possible? It is possible, now, to amend the Electoral Count Act in modest, but worthwhile ways. Can Democrats say, “No-brainer?”
Liz Cheney's winning or losing is certainly a canary in the coal mine for the GOP.
Thanks for the update on the ECA reform. Time for another round of letters to my legislators.
You are my sunshine, my only sunshine. We should force people like Garland to speak up more often.
But nobody mentions the reason why so many republicans buy the bull Schitt. Rupert Murdoch spews crap 24/7. While reading your suggestions for reading people who slice and dice the current situation, I understand the allure of the sound bites. Don’t buy them but, oh, so tempting for the cult and those whose brains are busy surviving.