The Election Eve Post, 2025 Edition

Another Election Eve, already?

Yep. And this is my thirteenth ‘Monday-before-the-first-Tuesday-in-November’ post, trying to encourage everyone to vote.

Voting is arguably the most important right we have. After all, it’s the only chance we have to determine who will lobby on our behalf in the halls and backrooms of government. And it’s really the only time many of the folks we elect pay any direct attention to us. Absent elections, would incumbents or their challengers bother with the mailings, phone calls, town halls, surveys, and personal visits? Would we hear from unions and so-called ‘interest groups’ if they weren’t trying to get us to vote for their favorite? Pretty sure we all know the answer to that.

But voting is also among the least respected of our rights, and that’s incredibly frustrating to me. Between efforts to limit who can vote, how we can vote, where we can vote, what we can and can’t do while standing in line to vote, and gerrymandering and redistricting, where the politicians try to choose us, instead of us choosing them. 

Add in the many ways in which our voices and our ability to influence candidates have been overwhelmed by all money flowing from in from PACS, political parties, corporations, lobbyists, business organizations, unions, billionaire donors and all the rest, especially all the money from outside the district where we are supposed to pick representatives, and I get why people might throw up their hands and say, “Why should we even bother?”  

We should bother because every vote matters in every election. We should bother because the more people stay away, the more the powers-that-be will think they can do whatever they want. We should bother because the more we participate, the better our chances of holding the people we elect accountable. We should bother if we care at all about the direction our schools, villages, towns, cities, counties, states, and the federal government are heading. 

And finally, we should bother because if we don’t, we’ll more often than not end up having to choose between the lesser of two or more bad candidates, instead of between the best of two or more good ones.

And wouldn’t that be a wonderful problem to have? 

I offer below my annual motivational message, in case you're still on the fence about exercising your right to vote.

After some thought, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians."(1)  Actually, “The idea of an election is much more interesting to me than the election itself…the act of voting is in itself the defining moment.”(2) And why is it that “When the political columnists say ‘every thinking man’ they mean themselves, and when candidates appeal to ‘every intelligent voter’ they mean everyone who is going to vote for them”?(3) 

We know it’s true that “Bad officials are elected by good citizens who didn’t vote”(4), and that “A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won’t cross the street to vote in a national election.”(5) Do we still not realize, after all these years, that “lower voter participation is a silent threat to our democracy… it under-represents young people, the poor, the disabled, those with little education, minorities and you and me”? (6) 

After all, “the vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men” (7) and “to make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not just observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” (8) 

And complain we do, after every election when 'the wrong guy' wins. If the only people who complained were the ones who voted, it’d likely be a lot less noisy, don't you think? 

Some folks may not vote because they don't know how to decide who to vote for, or they're afraid they'll vote 'wrong.' There are a couple of different schools of thought on that. On the one hand, some might think that.

“Politics is the art of the possible” (9), while others may subscribe to the thinking that “politics is not the art of the possible, it consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. And it is true that the great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter the chance to do something stupid.” (10) 

Said another way, a “Vote (is) the instrument and symbol of a freeman’s power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country.” (11) But that’s OK – “personally, I believe that our American system works as long as you participate in it. You must vote and make your voice heard; otherwise you will be left out.” (12) 

It’s generally true that if you “ask a man which way he’s going to vote and he’ll probably tell you. Ask him, however, why – and vagueness is all.”(13) But voting’s really easy; and “all voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong.” (14) And just about everyone likes to play a game now and then, right? 

The bottom line is, “voting is simply a way of determining which side is the stronger without putting it to the test of fighting;”(15) “voting is a civic sacrament;”(16) and “the future of this republic is in the hands of the American voter.”(17) 

And remember, if all of that seems like too much pressure, you have an out: “Vote for the man who promises least. He’ll be the least disappointing.” (18) 

Please, vote. It really does matter, this year and every year. Honestly, "there is no such thing as a vote that doesn't matter."(19) Besides, "not voting is not a protest. It is a surrender." (20)  

My final pitch?  "Talk is cheap, voting is free; take it to the polls." (21)

If you need information on where to vote, help with your ballot, or any other assistance, contact your local Board of Elections. Lots of people are out there, ready and willing to help. 

 If you're an early voter and have already done your civic duty, thank you! If you're not going to be around on Election Day and voted by absentee ballot, thank you! And if you vote the old-fashioned way, by showing up at your polling place on Election Day like I do, thank you!  

And thanks to these folks for their words of wisdom: 1 - Charles De Gaulle; 2 – Jeff Melvoin; 3 – Franklin P Adams; 4 and 13 – Andrew Lack; 5 - Bill Vaughan; 6 - Nancy Neuman; 7 - Lyndon B Johnson; 8 - Louis L’Amour; 9 – Otto Von Bismarck; 10 – Art Spander; 11 – Ambrose Bierce; 12 - Mari-Luci Jaramillo; 14 – Henry David Thoreau; 15 – H.L. Mencken; 16—Theodore Hesburgh; 17 – Dwight D. Eisenhower; 18 – Bernard Baruch); 19 - Barack Obama; 20 - Keith Ellison; 21 - Nanette L. Avery

The Journal of Unpopular Opinions (Chapter 4)

When a president, congressman, senator, governor, state legislator, or anyone else tells you that the only way they can ‘protect you from the other side’ or ‘continue serving you to the best of their abilities’ is to treat you as if you haven’t got an independent thought in your head, run screaming from the room.

*****     *****     *****     *****     

Off-cycle Congressional redistricting by Republicans, like that done (so far) in Texas, North Carolina, Ohio, and soon Indiana, which will tackle it starting Monday, has nothing to do with what voters want and everything to do with what the politicians want: to protect their longevity by caving to a president who clearly knows he is as unpopular as we the people believe he is.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for similar redistricting efforts by the Democrats, such as those under consideration in Maryland, Illinois, and New York (so far). Some consider these noble efforts, from a 'we can't let them rig the election' or whatever the logic is, but I disagree. It's a shameless attempt to grab power, to protect their longevity, and to cheat the system, which is exactly what the Ds claim the Rs are doing.  

California's goal is the same, but the process is different, so I dislike it slightly less than I do the blatant stuff being done elsewhere. The Golden State has an independent Citizens Redistricting Commission, so the legislature needs voter approval to bypass that group and institute its own maps - and I hope voters reject the Prop 50 ballot initiative. 

Why?  Because we should be demanding the right to choose our politicians, rather than letting them choose us. We should never give a politician our vote simply because we share a party affiliation. We should be making them work for every vote they want and earn every vote they get. 

And we should never stand for them giving in to the narcissistic, panicked demands and threats of the person at the top of their party, no matter how high the throne upon which that person sits.

For too long, we have acted as if the term ‘voting rights’ only applies to ensuring access to voting.  For years, we have sat by, watching the people who have been trusted to represent us:

• make it harder for us to vote by taking away options like early voting, mail-in ballots, and other changes, and by implementing ridiculous rules that directly and negatively impact women, the elderly, and economically disadvantaged voters, because 'those people' are more likely to vote against a certain party;

• constantly bang the drum about all kinds of voter fraud, ignoring years of evidence that there is negligible impact from the extremely limited fraud that occurs, and complaining that elections they don't are rigged, and threatening states, which have constitutional control over their voting rules, with all kinds of retribution if they don't change their ways to diminish or exclude certain voters;

• allow our voices to be overshadowed and overwhelmed by the tens of millions of dollars politicians of both parties receive from corporations, political parties, unions, lobbyists, PACs, and super-rich donors, in return for who knows what legislative promises; and

• blatantly look away from - heck, they run away from - our legitimate concerns about the direction of our country, their policies, and their ineffectiveness.

And here we are today, 

• letting them disrespect us even more by rearranging us into districts they assume will give them an advantage; 

• letting them assume we’re nothing but sheep that will vote for a party rather than for our issues and interests; and 

• letting them assume they no longer have to work for our votes.  

You know what they say about people who assume, right? That old line about 'making an ass...'?

Don’t let them get away with it.

• If your state asks you to vote for off-cycle redistricting, vote no.

• If your state just goes ahead and redistricts off-cycle, let the folks who represent you know that you’re unhappy about it, and that you’ll vote against them at the earliest opportunity. And then, do exactly that.

• And if they’re not talking about it, or have decided not to play the game, thank them – and remind them that they still have to work for – and earn – your vote, every single election.

It's time we fully use our voting rights - and there's no better time to start than this Tuesday, Election Day. 

Breaking Fake News Update (v6)

Fake News Broke (Again) on August 11, 2025! 

This fake news broke as FOTUS's efforts to gain more control over the House of His Personal Representatives struggled in Texas as pesky Democrats left the Lone-Star-reviewed state and headed north to blue states to avoid having to participate in the mid-cycle redistricting shenanigans. This one pretty much wrote itself.

The Dems eventually returned to Austin, where they had to get permission (and a police escort) to leave the legislative chamber, for God's sake, and voted against the power grab. Needless to say, the MAGA Republicans had their way, the maps were approved, and Gov. Gregg Abbott signed the bill. 

We will continue to share fake news as it breaks.

In Case You Missed It (v89)

Back from a quick getaway to Cape Cod, which limited my posting last week. Here's what did make it out, in case you missed anything.

For Sunday School, I sat in on abortion-related discussions with a Republican governor and member of Congress and a Democratic senator and a state AG. Here's a bit of the conversation with the governor, Mississippi's Tate Reeves, who was in the CNN State of the Union classroom with Jake Tapper in the driver's seat.

Part of their conversation focused on the state's dismal statistics on poverty, infant mortality, paid maternity leave, Medicaid expansion and a federal lawsuit over Child Protective Services failures to protect children. Reeves said

It's due in large part to poverty. And so, we are focusing every day on fixing the challenges that are before us... when you talk about these young ladies, the best thing we can do for them is to provide and improve educational opportunities for them... We have got to continue to work to provide workforce opportunities, jobs for these individuals. But to do that, they have got to improve the quality of their skills. And we as a state are investing heavily in that.

I did a little noodling around and found some additional statistics that Tapper didn't mention, and tossed a question into the air. 

In 2012, Mississippi was 47th in spending on education; in 2022, the state is ranked 46th; it plans on investing $49M in American Rescue Plan funding in education over the next couple of years. And, the state has only the $7.25 federal minimum wage. Notably,

The 2019 Mississippi Minimum Wage Act, or Senate Bill 2150, aimed to gradually increase the Mississippi minimum wage to $10 an hour by 2022, but this proposal died in committee. In 2021, Mississippi lawmakers continue to debate if and how the state should go about increasing the minimum wage. With Mississippi being the last state to not have a law requiring equal pay for women and men, there is still much discussion to be had.

Seems there's a tough row to hoe there... Maybe taking care of those other things first would make sense? 

For your Extra Credit, I tried to find something else that's relevant these days, and stumbled on Margaret Brennan and former AG Eric Holder talking in the Face the Nation classroom about redistricting. Holder's running an organization called the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, and he's written a book, too.  

They talked about redistricting around the country, and about maps drawn by both the Rs and the Ds. He draws distinctions between what's happened in various states.

I think you can't compare, however, what happened in New York and Maryland to what is going on in Texas, Georgia, potentially Florida, Wisconsin, where Republicans have really gone to town in terms of gerrymanders. Fundamentally different from what Democrats have done.

He gave some examples, including Texas, where the Hispanic population increased, giving the states additional Congressional seats, but 

they've "created more majority white districts" and haven't "increased the power of Hispanics in Texas at all."  

That's not the same as what happened in NY, where the map 

reflects really a population shift, a hollowing out of the rural areas in New York, as well as an increase in the urban areas in New York. So, there's a census bureau basis of what's happening in New York that does not exist in Republican states.

And he's not buying the Florida Man's maps, either, which he says are "certainly race conscious." 

They're going after Democrats. And the fact that that -- the Democrats that they're going after happen to be black I don't think is necessarily a coincidence. The suit that we won in Alabama was -- where we said that you should have additional representation for the black inhabitants of Alabama, those districts were certainly drawn with the thought that they would disenfranchise African-Americans in Alabama.

And Alabama's even stranger, with the court saying it's too close to the election to change the maps - which is pretty much the opposite of what's happening in other states.  

It was an interesting discussion, and not just on redistricting.

I did have a little Wondering on Wednesday fun, part of it stemming from things we saw - or didn't see - on the trip to the Cape. 

There was wonderment about making sure trucks can go slowly down steep grades, but not making sure they can go fast up the same hills, and about the seemingly always-closed truck weigh stations, no matter what state we're in, and no matter what state the trucks or their drivers are in. On the latter, I've made a blanket deal with my husband - if we ever see one of these inspection ramps open, I'll give him $20. 

And then it got a little more serious, with wondering on the Senate's failed like it was guaranteed to vote to codify abortion protections, and whether there were any possibilities to work on a passable vote. Not that the Dems were interested in doing that, anyway.

I wondered about Elon Musk (that's become de rigueur, right?) and Twitter, and I wondered about abortion-related protests.

And finally, thinking about the protests that are happening outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices, I have to wonder how it feels for them to experience something like what women experience on the way from their cars to their medical appointments?  It's hard not to wonder why chanting and shouting and singing and waving signs outside a Justice's house is possibly a criminal act, while doing the same, and more, while being in much closer proximity, to boot - to women at a medical facility, and their escorts, is merely an exercise of the 1st Amendment's free speech rights.

I wonder, I do, about this stuff and more, and about what I'll find this week, when I'm back in the swing of paying attention to things.

I'll see you next for Sunday School.

Sunday School 5/8/22: Extra Credit

Your Sunday School had four perspectives on the Alito draft, the upcoming SCOTUS decision likely to overturn Roe, and what it means going forward. For your Extra Credit, I'm completely switching gears.

One of the non-abortion related discussions happened in the Face the Nation classroom, where Margaret Brennan chatted with former Obama AG Eric Holder. Holder's got a new book out - Our Unfinished March - and he's perhaps the only former pol-turned-author making the rounds who's not a former Trump administration anything.

Brennan asked him about his work on redistricting, through his National Democrat Redistricting Committee, and how some critics call his strategy "sue to blue," or say that it's completely partisan - in favor of the Dems, of course. He said that's not the case. Rather, 

... ours is a fight for fairness. And, yes, we've brought a lot of lawsuits -- successfully brought a lot of lawsuits in order to make sure that the process is done in a fair way and so that the American people actually pick their representatives as opposed to politicians choosing their voters. And so 'sue to blue', that's what they say when you're winning in court, which is what we have done at a whole bunch of levels.

He didn't necessarily agree with Brennan that the Dems have the edge going into the midterms, but he thinks they 

certainly stopped the Republicans when they said they wanted to secure a decade of power in this next decade based on the redistricting that they were going to do. We have blunted that effort and we certainly have more fair maps than we did coming out of the last redistricting cycle. The thing that really worries me, however, is that we have 40 percent fewer competitive seats than I think we should have as a result of what both parties have done.

Brennan asked why his organization hasn't challenged any of the Dems' gerrymanders, including the maps in Maryland and New York, both of which were thrown out by the courts. He said he's indicated his opposition to what happened in Maryland, and he agreed with the judge's decision there. And, he said, the maps the legislature drew in New York were not the maps he would have drawn. He things the final maps in NY will be "different, but no fundamentally different."

And, he said, 

I think you can't compare, however, what happened in New York and Maryland to what is going on in Texas, Georgia, potentially Florida, Wisconsin, where Republicans have really gone to town in terms of gerrymanders. Fundamentally different from what Democrats have done.

He said in Texas, they're picking up two seats "strictly as a result of the increase in the Hispanic population," but they've "created more majority white districts" and haven't "increased the power of Hispanics in Texas at all."  

The map that you see in New York reflects really a population shift, a hollowing out of the rural areas in New York, as well as an increase in the urban areas in New York. So there's a census bureau basis of what's happening in New York that does not exist in Republican states.

And what about Florida, and Gov. DeSantis saying he's being 'race-neutral' with his maps? Brennan said she knows Holder "strongly" disagrees, and asked if he's saying Florida's gerrymandering is rooted in racism.  "It's certainly race conscious," he said, and by getting rid of a traditionally black district, "race is a factor there." And, intentional disenfranchisement is part of it.

They're going after Democrats. And the fact that that -- the Democrats that they're going after happen to be black I don't think is necessarily a coincidence. The suit that we won in Alabama was -- where we said that you should have additional representation for the black inhabitants of Alabama, those districts were certainly drawn with the thought that they would disenfranchise African-Americans in Alabama.

Alabama's weird. They have maps, but the Supremes might hear a case on the maps if someone were to complain the new districts are racially biased or designed to, as Holder said, disenfranchise African-Americans. Brennan wondered about this year's election, and the chance that the maps might be invalidated, and what that does to the election outcome.  Here's Holder's take on it.

Well, they're going to have an election in November based on maps that judges, including two Trump judges, said were inappropriately, unconstitutionally drawn. The Supreme Court said too close to the election and so we're going to allow the election to go ahead on those maps that were found to be defective. Now, that the Supreme Court will ultimately do with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which was the basis for the lawsuit in Alabama, will remain to be seen. But that's one of the things I talk about in my book, this notion of us getting to some structural changes, that we need to look -- we need to ban partisan gerrymandering. We need the structures of our democracy if we're going to try to -- if we're going to try to save it.

There was an interesting exchange when Brennan sort of twisted something Holder said in his book. Here's how it went.

MB: And the problem that you sketch out here, you say that the entire democratic system, essentially, is broken, as I understand it. Unrepresentative Senate, unnecessary anti-democrat Electoral College, gerrymandered House of Representatives, panoply of state legislatures, and a stolen Supreme Court. A stolen Supreme Court. You say every person having an equal say in our democracy, one person, one vote, is far from a reality.

EH: Yes, I think that's true.

MB: You're saying the entire system is broken. What -- so if Republicans win control of Congress in November, is that election -- does it not have integrity? Do you not accept the outcome of it?

EH: No, I think your premise goes a little far. I wouldn't say that everything is broken, but there is --

MB: I was reading from your book there.

Yes, she was reading from the book in the part where she read from the book, but to jump from there to asking whether the election has integrity is quite a leap, and very much putting words into Holder's mouth, IMO.  Here's his response.

No, what I'm saying -- I would say is, there is a substantial amount of our structure that needs to be repaired, that needs to be examined. And I think we should -- what I've tried to put out -- point out in the book is that we have faced these issues before and that we've had heroes and heroines in our history that have faced similar kinds of issues and through sacrifice, commitment, they have made a difference. And we have the capacity, I think, to make these kinds of changes.

And, specifically on the Supremes, where Brennan placed a lot of emphasis,  

If you look at the Supreme Court, we have two seats, one stolen from the Democrats that Merrick Garland should have now. That -- that seat was not filled because it was to close to an election. And then Amy Coney Barrett was placed into a seat while people were actually voting. I mean those are the kinds of things that I think need to be addressed. And what I talk about in the book is to say, look, we should term limit the justices, 18 years, and that every president should have an opportunity to nominate two justices per term and to try to take some of the pressure out of this -- the partisanship and the confirmation process.

He's absolutely right on the Supremes: Garland should have had his confirmation hearing, when he was nominated, and Coney Barrett should not have had her hearing when she was nominated. Many people - perhaps even most people - understand how egregious the Grim Reaper's actions were on the Garland pick, and how hypocritical they were on the other one as well. And, I think, even Republicans would be having a cow or three if the shoe were on the other foot in either one of these cases. 

Holder's got a lot of ideas; admittedly he's trying to get Dems elected, but in the end, if the people get to choose their elected officials, instead of them picking us, we'll all be better off. I might actually read this one.

See you around campus.  

Wondering on Wednesday 4/27/22

 

Ready... Set... Wonder!

What's on my wondering mind tonight?

Elon Musk does not yet own Twitter. Sure, he and the board have agreed that he will buy the company, but it's gonna take a while, as these deals always do. So, what's the wondering here? 

• How much silliness is Musk going to interject into the discussion between now and his closing date, and will his silliness jeopardize the deal? 
• Will he stop blocking people on the platform, given he's a free-speech absolutist? That's one of the main reasons he gave for wanting to buy the darn thing in the first place.
• Will he stop posting boner and peepee tweets about people with whom he has disagreements, or will he continue to act like a bratty kid?

And, of course, what's going to happen to all the people, including many celebrities, who are shouting from the rooftops about leaving Twitter? I wonder, will they stick around until the bitter end when the deal finally closes? Will they bail now? Or will they never bail, just like all the people who were going to move out of the country when Obama, Trump and Biden got elected? 

And what about blue checkmark people? The checkmark, the symbol of 'authenticity' on Twitter, will lose its oomph when Musk takes over, if not sooner - more people could get it, under his current thinking. Will that make the authenticated folks mad, I wonder? 

I mean, they'll be losing some of their specialhood or something - and if I'm willing to subscribe to a paid Twitter, they'd be no different from me. Well, they'd still have lots more followers, but at least 99% of mine are real...

And what about True Justice, Truth Joke, Trust Special, or whatever The Former Guy calls his platform? He said he's going to stay there, but if everyone's allowed on Musk's platform, why would anyone bother with the other one? 

What has me wondering tonight? Redistricting maps. No, not the Florida maps, the ones here in New York, which were tossed this afternoon by our highest court. The Democrats in the legislature had hoped that seven judges appointed by Dems would look kindlier on this tomfoolery, but that was not the case. So, petitions are no good anymore, candidates don't know what the districts will look like, or may want to run in a different one than they thought they wanted to run in, and it's more likely than not that part of the primary will have to be pushed out a month or two.  

So, what I'm wondering is, can we get back the money we paid the commissioners - $25K annually - and the $145K paid annually paid to the two executive staff members? I mean, they didn't do what we wanted them to do, so why should they get paid? And, how do we make sure that none of the costs associated with this debacle are shifted to taxpayers? Finally, I wonder how the heck we avoid going through this exact same thing again in ten years?

Oh - one more thing: I wonder if the Dems will stop wailing about the awful gerrymandering the Rs do, now that their own maps have been set out with the trash?  

I'm also wondering how it's even possible that flight attendants are not paid for everything they do during the boarding process. I had no idea that some of the hardest stuff they do - getting nice people, and jerky people, and emotional support animals, and screaming babies, and clunky carry-on bags on the plane, in their correct places, in a timely manner - they did for free. Especially during the pandemic - good lord, they did all that for free?? 

Starting in June, Delta will pay their flight attendants during boarding; even though it's only at half their rate, it's better than nothing. And hopefully this will trickle across the skies to any other flight attendants who aren't being paid for this critical, and often miserable, work.

That's all there's time for tonight; what's got you wondering? 

Wondering on Wednesday 4/20/22

Ready... Set... Wonder!

I wonder about the people who scream about 'cancel culture' and, at the same time, cheer the politicians who are, in some ways, on the verge of 'cancelling' Disney in Florida? 

And I wonder what happens when someone else in the Sunshine State is forced to pick up the costs of providing services to Disney properties, which (as I understand it), the company provides through their Reedy Creek Improvement District? And who, I wonder, will be the lucky people to assume that responsibility?

And I wonder, now that DeSantis has attacked the cruise industry for COVID rules, and the Mouseketeers for supporting LGBTQ folks, who's next on his radar? Will teachers be swept off the beaches? Blacks, maybe? Or librarians who dare to keep bad books on the shelves? 

And I wonder, when did DeSantis first stop liking the 'special districts' created before 1968? He mentioned in a press conference last month that, "a matter of first principle is I don’t support special privileges in law just because a company is powerful, and they’ve been able to wield a lot of power."  

Was it just when Disney became 'woke' - 0r has he always thought that? And if he's always thought that, I wonder why he waited until now - during a special session of the legislature, called to cram his personal redistricting maps down everyone's throats - to address the issue? 

And if the 'cancellation' isn't going to take effect until June 2023, I wonder what DeSantis and the rest of them will do to punish the company for the next year? And I wonder, if Disney wanted to reapply for a special district, would DeSantis and the gang even consider it? 

And what about the Imagineers? I wonder if they're going to spend the next few months trying to come up with a theme park ride about a vindictive governor and his minions? Oh wait - can't be minions, maybe they can Imagineer a new name for the Rs in the legislature, and introduce that along with the ride?  

And what about the trailer? Disney always makes a mini-movie when they're ready to roll out a major new 'experience' at their parks, and I wonder, would I have to subscribe to Disney+ to see it, or would ABC carry it on broadcast TV?

And I have to wonder, how many other DeSantis-ish pols in other states will follow his lead and start attacking businesses in their own backyards? And who will be the first?

What are you wondering about tonight?

The Update Desk: Fair Redistricting

A couple of updates related to my Grains of Salt post on voters in Syracuse approving a change to the city's Charter to bring us independent, fair redistricting:

First, Syracuse's Common Council President Helen Hudson talked with folks at WAER, our local PBS affiliate, about redistricting in general and what we might expect down the road.

The proposition was approved by a 76% to 23% margin, and Hudson, who says we're long overdue for a redistricting, "appreciates the strong support" the measure received. She gave just one example of  why we need to redraw the maps.

We know within the last twenty years, we've had a really huge influx of new Americans, and most of them are packed into District One, which is overpopulated. So we need to start looking at how we can reshape some of these districts and give people representation.

She also pointed out one of the things that drives people crazy about how districts are drawn: that there are places where multiple councilors represent portions of the same street, making it hard for residents to figure out who represents them - and, I'd add, potentially make it harder for neighborhoods like this have cohesive representation.

Hudson said that the next step is "to engage citizens in public hearings," with the goal of getting input on how the independent commission should be created.

We're going to be looking at civic involvement, how often you voted, demographics, racial makeups... We're going to be looking at a whole gamut of things to ensure that everyone gets the representation they deserve. 

She noted that folks interested in being on the commission will be able to apply, and said that the City Auditor, with no stake in the district maps, would receive resumes in the interest of keeping this process independent. She also noted that our officials are looking to other cities which have already gone this way for guidance, including Austin, Texas.

Also from our friends at WAER, we've learned that we have our first candidate for the DeFrancisco-Antonacci seat in the NY State Senate.

At an announcement held at Syracuse's Schiller Park, John Mannion announced he will run for the seat. Mannion, you'll recall, lost to Antonacci in a close race to fill the seat after DeFrancisco retired.

I've done it before, you know. A lot of the things in the platform are the same; it has to do with the environment, it has to do with the economics of the region, and education is always going to be important to me. We have have a positive change in the teacher evaluation system, but we still don't have a fair funding formula that's working for school districts. 

It's still not known whether there'll be a special election for the seat, but the Sonofa Gov, Andrew Cuomo, seems to be leaning in that direction, according to this report from one of our local TV stations.

The day after the election, when it appeared that Senator Antonacci would likely win one of the three State Supreme Court seats, Cuomo said that his "inclination would be to call a special election" if Antonacci resigns

He's already got another special election to call -- the one to fill the seat vacated when disgraced Congressman Chris Collins resigned and pleaded guilty in his federal insider trading case. And, it's "most cost effective" to have the special election on New York's primary day, Cuomo suggested, since the polls will be open anyway, and it's possible that the open State Senate seat could be handled the same day.

The problem, of course, is that waiting until April 28th would leave parts of Onondaga and Cayuga Counties without representation during the first four months of the legislative session which amounts to around 70% of the 57-day session. Having it sooner - it could happen sometime in March, I guess, based on the typically difficult rules for special elections, but that would be up to the Governor.

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that folks in the district would rather spend the money and have someone representing them, than the alternatives: waiting until the session is almost over, or having someone appointed to fill out the term and letting the parties do their primary thing, with winners to face off in the general election in November.

Grains of Salt (v51): Fair Redistricting Matters

Grains of Salt

Last Tuesday, voters in the city of Syracuse approved a proposition that will lead to creation of an independent commission of city residents to handle the Common Council redistricting after the 2020 census.

Many folks are at least tangentially aware of issues with redistricting around the country; for example, the Supreme Court has heard a number of cases over the years, dealing with issues of race, population, who gets to do the redistricting, and whether partisanship is good or bad.

Personally, I'm not a fan of having politicians do their own redistricting; we've seen too, too many times how this works to benefit them and not us. That doesn't mean that all politicians are bad, or self-serving, or more interested in their own longevity - but there's so many examples of exactly that,  like this battle in Pennsylvania, or this one in North Carolina, that I'd rather someone like me tried to figure out. 

The rules for Syracuse that our vote amended say that if any of the five districts falls below 15% or above 25% of the total population, the districts must be redrawn, and any new district must contain between 17% and 23 of the population. The Common Council voted earlier this year to amend the charter to allow for the independent commission, as long as voters agreed.

The Council's decision came after the County Legislature voted against making the same change.  Here's County Legislator Chris Ryan, a member of the Democratic minority, talking to WRVO about the lines drawn years ago:

Our finished product, when we redid the legislative districts almost a decade ago, was seriously flawed, and probably should have been challenged legally. We should lean on our community leaders, our civic groups, academia and people who do this kind of thing, and consult with them, so we can put forth a better product.

Here's what he's talking about, from WRVO's report:

The lines were drawn  to fit more than 27,000 people in a district. 

But the result is a hodgepodge of meandering lines, dividing up the city of Syracuse into nine out of 17 county districts, located completely or partly within the city. Republicans hold a 12 to 5 advantage in the legislature, despite there being more registered Democrats in the County.  

Legislature Chairman David Knapp, while saying the Republicans are "looking at opening up the redistricting process" sometime in the future (and maybe even holding a public meeting), expressed some concerns with having a commission now instead of waiting until after the census.

We just felt it was adding another bureaucratic commission that really didn't have any teeth, to advise a commission that's already in place. In this really highly charged political environment we're in, finding nonpartisan groups is pretty tough these days. 

He's right - we are in a "highly charged political environment " - in part because of things like how district lines are drawn, how that dissuades many voters from participating (at best), and disenfranchises them (at worst). It's also in part because of the distrust of the elected in those who elect them (and conversely); it's also in part because of the assumption that finding nonpartisan people is impossible. I'd say it probably is, if your premise is that you won't.   

We know that redistricting shenanigans have happened here in NY, because former State Senator John DeFrancisco told us so, about not only protecting a political party, but protecting a specific potential future candidate for state office. Take a look at these excerpts from DeFrancisco's book, as reported by Teri K. Weaver of Syracuse.com | The Post Standard.

When it was time to redraw state political districts nearly a decade ago, former state Sen. John DeFrancisco rejected an early version of proposed changes to the district he represented.

Why? It left out the town of Onondaga, DeFrancisco writes in his new memoir.

Bob Antonacci, another Republican, lives in Onondaga.

And DeFrancisco, a veteran senator who was then in his mid-60s, was already thinking about who might run for the district when he retired.

“I objected, since Bob Antonacci lived in the town of Onondaga,” DeFrancisco writes in his book, “Never Say Never: Adventures in NY Politics.”

“I wanted to keep open the possibility that he could run for my seat if he was interested when the time came,” DeFrancisco writes.

And that’s just what happened.

Yep -- a proud moment for the double-dipping former Senator, don't you think? The guy who said we needed him more than he needed us?

Granted, I could simply retire and not serve any longer. However, now that Republicans have regained control of the State Senate, Central New York would be better served by my returning to my Senate seat, as a majority member and Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee (emphasis added).

And apparently we'd be better served by having a district map drawn to help get someone somewhere off in the distant future get elected? 

If we needed a reason why we need impartial redistricting in New York, and in Onondaga County, and in the city of Syracuse, I'm not sure we'll find one better than this. Oh -- eventually, Antonacci did run, did win by a narrow margin, and then after less than a year in office, rn for and win a seat on the State Supreme Court bench. So much for DeFrancisco's plan.

Fair Maps CNY obtained commitments from most incumbents and candidates running for city and county 'district' seats to support fair and nonpartisan redistricting, which sets us up well for getting this right after the 2020 census.  

Among the folks signing the pledge? Legislature Chairman David Knapp. 

Wondering on Wednesday (v125)

What are we wondering about today? I'm not wondering about the 17-minute walkouts - I support the students, and the adults who supported them, whether they walked with hundreds, or with a dozens, and even the ones who walked alone. Good for them!

Instead, let's wonder about the #PA18 special election.  For example, I wonder if someone took the president's phone away from him? He's been conspicuously quiet on the Twitter about the outcome. Which is weird, since he was so focused on mentioning the Republican candidate's name twice, I think, in the hour he was in the neighborhood to "endorse" Rick Saccone late last week. Maybe Trump was more interested in tooting his own horn than he was in tooting someone else's? 

I heard a Republican strategist say that if Conor Lamb hadn't run as a Republican, he would have lost for sure.  What the strategist meant, he told us, was that Lamb does not like Nancy Pelosi, he said he was going to represent the people, not the leadership; he's pro-tariff (given his district, I'm not surprised, really) and that he believes in the 2nd amendment - voila, a Republican in a blue suit, or something. I wonder if that's how the Rs will explain what we see in this picture from the NY Times coverage of the race?

All those little blue arrows represent the shift in votes to the Dem side. And, in case you're wondering, I haven't been able to find a little red arrow anywhere. If you find one, please let me know!

Many people have been wondering whether there will be recount - it's what we would expect in a race this close, but it's unlikely to happen. Under Pennsylvania rules, three voters in each precinct would need to file a timely request for a recount. Furthermore, this whole race was about a district that will likely not exist come November. meaning we could be going through this whole thing again in a few months.  Why? The PA district map was thrown out by the courts and, because the legislature couldn't come up with a better version, an independent consultant made a new one. 

I'm also wondering if other Dems who are running in traditionally red districts will have the courage to represent their district and be unafraid of  the Power of Pelosi. I've long not been a fan - no secret in these pages - and I think one of the things we desperately need is new leadership and a fresh approach in the House. That starts, I think, with not electing Pelosi speaker should the Dems actually flip the 24 seats needed - 23 now, with Lamb's victory - to flip the House. 

And finally, I wonder if Dems are going to learn anything from this one. You know - how to get in the race, when to stay out, and stuff like that. Outside money - another one of my pet peeves - was north of $13 million, and 80% of that was spent by red side - and they apparently lost. 

There's a lesson in all of this, I'm sure. 

TGIF 2/23/18

Yay! Another week in the books...

The week that saw Pennsylvania get handed redistricting maps, drawn by an expert from Stanford University, based on the 2016 presidential election vote.  Why were new maps needed?  Well, the old maps were determined to be a 'partisan gerrymander' and in violation of the law, and the governor (a Dem) and the state legislative leaders (Reps, natch) couldn't get it figured out on their own, so down came the new version.

The court's new map largely undid the Republican gerrymander, creating 10 Republican-leaning and eight Democratic-leaning House seats, as estimated using 2016 presidential election returns. Outside experts who were not involved with the case praised the new map, calling it "fairer" and "much more competitive" than the old one. 

The new map is a better reflection both of the composition of the state's electorate which tends to be divided evenly between Democrats and Republicans, and of the traditional redistricting criteria used to draw maps in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.

So, naturally, the justices on the state Supreme Court that made the ruling need to be impeached, because, oh for Pete's sake, because the Republicans stand to lose as many as three seats because of the redistricting.

The week that saw the Florida House declare pornography a public health crisis, and require that "In God We Trust" be placed conspicuously in every school in the state. According to the bill's sponsor, Rep. Kimberly Daniels (a Democrat),

It is not a secret that we have some gun issues that need to be addressed. But the real thing that needs to be addressed are issues of the heart.

The week that saw the president chime in officially, and give full control of his son-in-law's security clearance to General Kelly, his personal general, who will do the right thing, we're sure.

That will be up to General Kelly. General Kelly respects Jared a lot, and General Kelly will make that call -- I won't make that call. I will let the general, who's right here, make that call... I will let General Kelly make that decision and he's going to do what's right for the country. And  have no doubt that he will make the right decision. 

Or, he'll be fired, of course.

And finally, the week that say every teacher in West Virginia go on strike. Even after the state's governor signed wage increases of 2% this year and 1% for next year two fiscal years.

Wages and benefits are the issues; the salary increases are not enough to cover the increases in their health insurance, according to the teachers. And, a promised freeze of health insurance premiums for sixteen months wasn't enough to keep the teachers on the job, where the average starting salary is less than $32,500 and the average salary is $44,700. 

Which isn't a lot of money, in the overall scheme of things - especially if we end up asking teachers to be law enforcement officers too.

TGIF.

Turn it Over on Tuesday

This year, New Yorkers, you have to remember to #TurnItOver and vote on the three ballot initiatives.

I think it's pretty clear that there's not a lot of rip-roaring support for them in the halls of Albany, given how dry and boring the language is for these three. I mean, they're nothing like the one for casino gambling we had the last time around, which practically came with it's own marching band and parade floats:

The proposed amendment to section 9 of article 1 of the constitution would allow the legislature to authorize up to seven casinos in New York State for the legislated purposes of promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools, and permitting local governments to lower property taxes through revenues generated. Shall the amendment be approved?

Here are the three initiatives; for detailed information on each, including positions for and against, I encourage you to check out Balletopedia - there's some really good information there.

(1) Revising State's Redistricting Procedure
The proposed amendment to sections 4 and 5 and addition of new section 5-b to Article 3 of the State Constitution revises the redistricting procedures for state legislative and congressional districts. The proposed amendment establishes a redistricting commission every 10 years beginning in 2020, with two members appointed by each of the four legislative leaders and two members selected by the eight legislative appointees; prohibits legislators and other elected officials from serving as commissioners; establishes principles to be used in creating districts; requires the commission to hold public hearings on proposed redistricting plans; subjects the commission's redistricting plan to legislative enactment; provides that the legislature may only amend the redistricting plan according to the established principles if the commission's plan is rejected twice by the legislature; provides for expedited court review of a challenged redistricting plan; and provides for funding and bipartisan staff to work for the commission. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?

(2) Permitting Electronic Distribution of State Legislative Bills
The proposed amendment to section 14 of Article 3 of the State Constitution would allow electronic distribution of a state legislative bill to satisfy the constitutional requirement that a bill be printed and on the desks of state legislators at least three days before the Legislature votes on it. It would establish the following requirements for electronic distribution: first, legislators must be able to review the electronically-sent bill at their desks; second, legislators must be able to print the bill if they choose; and third, the bill cannot be changed electronically without leaving a record of the changes.  Shall the proposed amendment be approved?

(3) The SMART SCHOOLS BOND ACT OF 2014 
The SMART SCHOOLS BOND ACT of 2014, as set forth in section one of part B of chapter 56 of the laws of 2014, authorizes the sale of state bonds of up to two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) to provide access to classroom technology and high-speed Internet connectivity to equalize opportunities for children to learn, to add classroom space to expand high-quality pre-kindergarten programs, to replace classroom trailers with permanent instructional space, and to install high-tech smart security features in schools.  Shall the SMART SCHOOLS BOND ACT of 2014 be approved?

The choice is ours. We can only make it if we remember to turn the ballot over.