Iowa Caucuses 2024

The 2024 presidential primaries officially kicks off on Monday night in the frigid cold of Iowa.

Traditionally, the Iowa Caucuses have three major components.  First, they are used to create the local organization of the political parties as caucus attendees elect the precinct’s representatives to the county committee.  Second, they are used to choose the delegates to the county convention (which in turn will choose the congressional district/state convention delegates who will elect the national convention delegates).  Third, a preference vote is taken which is used to allocate national convention delegates.

Thanks in part to Iowa’s move to the right and past problems with counting and report the preference vote, the national Democratic Party has rescinded its permission for Iowa to conduct a pre-March preference vote.  Unlike their counterparts in New Hampshire, Iowa Democrats have worked with the national party (in the hopes that in the future they might get a pre-March spot back).  But it is helpful to have both parties hold their precinct caucuses on the same date and holding a later event would create timing issues.  So the Democrats will use their caucuses for the purposes of electing party officials and the delegates who will attend the county conventions.  But to comply with national party rules, there will be no presidential preference vote on Monday.  Instead, there will be a party-run primary that will conclude in March. Continue Reading...

Posted in Iowa Caucuses, Primary Elections | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Iowa Caucuses 2024

The Oral Argument in United States vs. Donald J. Trump (a/k/a The Insurrectionist)

Today, at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hold oral arguments on Donald Trump’s appeal of the decision that he is not immune from criminal prosecution for the events of January 6.  Apparently, the accused intends to personally attend this argument.  (For the reasons discussed below, his attorneys are likely unhappy with the decision and Trump may throw a temper tantrum either during or after the argument.)  For the millions who are unable to make it to the federal courthouse, the D.C. Circuit will be livestreaming the audio of the argument.  And the recording will posted on the court’s website by the close of business today.

I am not going to spend time on the merits of the case because the merits are really one-sided.  The trial judge in this case is respected by her peers and her order thoroughly demonstrates why Trump’s claim of immunity has no factual or legal merit.  It will be affirmed.  Instead, this post is intended to help readers understand what will be happening.

The first thing to understand is that oral argument is the last part of the case.  Even at the state level, it is expected that the judges will have read the written arguments (formally known as briefs of the party).  If the judges have the time, they may also have looked at the relevant portions of the trial court records to answer any factual questions that they may have about the proceeding.  They may also have looked at the key cases cited by the parties to understand what those cases actually say (instead of how the attorneys have tried to spin them).  In short, the judges have almost certainly formed an opinion about the issues in the case, and oral argument is a last chance for the parties to correct any misimpressions that they judges may have. Continue Reading...

Posted in Donald Trump, Judicial | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The Oral Argument in United States vs. Donald J. Trump (a/k/a The Insurrectionist)

The Trump Ballot Case and the Precedents of Nat Turner and John Brown

On Friday, the United Staes Supreme Court decided to grant President Trump’s Petition for Certiorari in Trump vs. Anderson.  However, it took no action on the companion Petition for Certiorari filed by the Colorado Republican Party in Colorado State Republican Central Committee v. Anderson.  Before turning to the issues raised in this case, there are two things to note about the Supreme Court order granting review and the petitions filed.

First, in granting Trump’s petition, the Supreme Court implicitly recognized the necessity to resolve this issue quickly.  The briefs of Trump and his enablers in the Republican Party (and related organizations) are due on January 18, less than two weeks after the order granting review (as opposed to the usual 45 days).  The briefs of Trump’s challengers and the Colorado election official who are in the middle of this case are due thirteen days later on January 31 (along with any outside brief from individuals who want to support Democracy) with any reply briefs due five days later on February 5.  This contrast to the normal deadlines of 45 days for petitioner’s brief with respondent’s brief due 30 days later and the reply brief an additional 35 days later. Additionally, the case will be argued on February 8 which is a special setting in the middle of what would otherwise have been the Supreme Court’s winter break.

Second, the Supreme Court did not rewrite Trump’s question presented.  Typically, the question prsented in a petition for certiorari is narrowly focused on one legal issue.  For example, did the lower court err in finding that the potential for the metabolizing of blood alcohol content is an automatic exigent circumstance permitting law enforcement officers to conduct a warrantless blood draw?  If there are multiple issues in a case, the petition will present multiple questions on which the Supreme Court can pick and choose which issues will be considered at the time that the petition is granted.  For example, the Colorado Republican Party presented three issues:  1) does Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the President; 2) is Section 3 self-executing; and 3) does disqualifying a candidate violate the First Amendment rights of political parties.  By contrast, the Trump Petition, after noting the ruling (that his actions and the office of President fell within the restrictions of Section) simply asks whether the Colorado Supreme Court erred by excluding him from the ballot.  In other words, unlike the usual question which identifies a specific legal error in the ruling, the Supreme Court appears to be allowing the consideration of any potential theory on why the Colorado Supreme Court erred. Continue Reading...

Posted in 2024 Convention, Donald Trump, Elections, GOP, Judicial, Republicans, RNC | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Trump Ballot Case and the Precedents of Nat Turner and John Brown

Welcome to 2024 – Convention Updates

  • Security planning is ongoing for the GOP Convention in Milwaukee
  • Click here to sign up to volunteer for the Democratic Convention in Chicago
  • GOP delegates may have to take an 80 minute bus ride from (blue) Madison to Milwaukee, in order to avoid a shorter trip from (blue) Illinois.  Got it?

Posted in 2024 Convention | Tagged , | Comments Off on Welcome to 2024 – Convention Updates

RNC: Convention is about “Economic Development”, not Trump

This is the funniest thing I’ve seen in a long time.  The Host Committee for the 2024 Republican Convention is telling donors that “the convention is about economic development and not who the nominee will be”:

Republican organizers are turning to donors — including some Democrats — to fund their 2024 convention, even if they don’t like former President Donald Trump.

Reince Priebus, chair of the Milwaukee 2024 Host Committee, acknowledged in an exclusive interview with POLITICO that the pitch requires some finesse. Continue Reading...

Posted in 2024 Convention, GOP | Tagged | Comments Off on RNC: Convention is about “Economic Development”, not Trump

Supreme Court Update

Before departing for the holidays, the Supreme Court had a couple of “gifts” of merits review in a couple of high profile cases with the possibility of a third before New Year’s.

Starting at the top of the list is the dubious case brought by Mrs. Senator Josh Hawley.  (Normally, the fact that a relative of a politician is involved in a case would not be noteworthy but whne you put yourself out as a power couple and you file the case in a location which assures that it will be heard by a judge who donated to the relative’s campaign and the relative played a large role in getting that judge appointed to the bench, this clearly qualifies as a team effort for which both share the blame.)  In this case, plaintiffs are a group of doctors who claim that they have standing to challenge the FDA’s decisions on approving Mifepristone because at some point they may be forced to provide treatment for a patient who took Mifepristone and had complications.  These political doctors sought to both invalidate recent changes to the guidance that the FDA gives on Mifepristone and its original approval.  Having filed the case in a location that assured them that the case would be heard by a judge who would twist the law and the facts to rule in their favor, they succeeded at the trial court on both parts of their case.  The FDA and the drug manufacture appealed this rubber stamp decision to the Fifth Circuit.  Even the Fifth Circuit could not twist the law in a manner that would allow them to affirm the decision as it relates to the original approval of Mifepristone, but they did find flaws in the administrative process which allowed them to affirm the decision with regards to the more recent changes approving a broader use for Mifepristone.  Everybody then sought U.S. Supreme Court review.  Several months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the Fifth Circuit’s ruling.  This past week, the Supreme Court granted the review sought by the FDA and the drug manufacturer, but denied the review sought by the medical hacks.

While this Supreme Court having any case related to abortion is always a matter of concern, the decision to take the FDA’s appeal and reject the appeal by the medical hacks is the best result possible for the pro-choice community.  And, the main issue in the case is the FDA procedures for approving medications and expanding “on label” uses after initial approval.  As such, the impact of a ruling against the FDA in this case would have a major negative impact on pharmaceutical companies.  As such, it is possible that six of the justices might put the abortion aspects of this case to the side and simply focus on it as an administrative procedure case.   If not, there is always the November elections. Continue Reading...

Posted in Donald Trump, Judicial | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Supreme Court Update

Special Elections 2024

Things are about to get very interesting in the House of Representatives.  While there have been a large number of representatives who are not running for re-election.  The irony of Republicans explaining their reason for leaving as the unpleasant environment in Congress is hard to miss.  But the focus of this post is not on those leaving in January 2025.  It is those who have left (involuntarily) or are about to be leaving mid-term.

At the present time, we have a vacancy in New York’s Third District due to the expulsion of fraudster who called himself George Santos.  (And the fact that the majority of House Republicans did not want to expel him despite overwhelming evidence of fraud while wanting to open an impeachment of President Biden with no evidence says something about the shell of a serious political party that the Republicans have become).  But we have also had announcements of the intent to resign in three other districts (so far) —   California’s Twentieth District (former Speaker Kevin McCarthy who will be leaving sometime later this month or in early January),  New York’s  Twenty-Sixth District (Democrat Brian Higgins who will be leaving in February), and Ohio’s  Sixth District (Republican Bill Johnson who will be leaving in March).

These departures in the House will alter the size of the Republican majority in the House.  The rules for vacancies in the House are different than the rules for vacancies in the Senate.  Under the Seventeenth Amendment, the governor of each state can temporarily fill a vacancy in the Senate until an election can be held to fill the balance of the term.  By contrast, there is no equivalent provision for the House.  Thus a House seat remains vacant until there is a special election.  For both the House and the Senate, the timing of the special election is left to the state.  Especially for the Senate, there is a wide range of rules with some states leaving the appointee in office until the next regularly scheduled election (which can create the weirdness of having two elections for the same office — one for the last three to four weeks of the current term and one for the next term — at the same time) and others requiring a prompt special election.  But the states also have different rules for the scheduling of House elections (and who chooses the candidates). Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections, House of Representatives | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Special Elections 2024

Convention Updates

  • Chicago has become a target city for GOP busing of migrants from red states
  • The Israel-Gaza war is causing concerns about protests in Chicago in 2024, in a city that has not forgotten the 1968 convention.
  • 500 media reps will be coming to Chicago in mid-January to check out logistics in the United Center
  • Milwaukee is concerned about nuclear weapons (not really)
  • And the RNC Convention CEO took a shot at the Dem’s choice of Chicago:

“Unlike the DNC, [the GOP] didn’t choose a city that’s reliably in their corner.”

Posted in 2024 Convention | Tagged , | Comments Off on Convention Updates

Judicial Roundup

November has seen two big developments in the courts that are of political interest which unfortunately can be characterized as the bad and the ugly.

The bad comes to us from the Eighth Circuit.  Traditionally, the Eighth Circuit has been somewhat on the conservative side, but mostly within the mainstream of traditional conservative thought.  It’s current compositions (by appointing president) is one from Daddy Bush, five from Shrub, one from Obama, and four from Trump.  This past week, a panel of the Eighth Circuit issued an opinion in Arkansas State Conference of the NAACP vs. Arkansas Board of Apportionment.  If you could not tell from the title, this case is a challenge to redistricting in Arkansas under the Voting Rights Act.  The trial judge in the case was a Trump appointee, and, based on a theory currently making its way among the far right, the trial judge dismissed the case on the theory that only the Attorney General can bring a case under Section 2.  In an opinion written by one of the Trump appointees, the panel adopted that theory.  The Trump appointee was joined by a Shrub appointee.  The third judge (a Shrub appointee) dissented.

The basis of the theory of the majority is textualism gone amok.  Technically, there is no express provision in the Voting Rights Act saying that private individuals can challenge district lines.  And, if this were a case of first impression involving just Section 2 and Section 2 had been written today, this argument might make sense.  Currently, courts are very reluctant to infer new causes of action. Continue Reading...

Posted in Civil Rights, Judicial | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Judicial Roundup

A Manchin-less Senate

This week, Senator Joe Manchin (I/D — WVa) announced that he would not be running for re-election.  If Senator Manchin does not end up on the “Let’s split the anti-Trump vote” “No Labels” ticket, this decision is both positive and negative for what Democrats might be able to do in the 2025-26 Congress.

To paraphrase a saying attributed to Karl Rove, progressive want to nominate the most progressive candidate that can win a general election.  In West Virginia, Joe Manchin might just have been the most progressive candidate that Democrats could nominate and still have a chance at winning.  His name recognition and reputation allowed him to win a state in which the average Democrat has hoping to receive 40-45% of the vote in the general election.

Is it possible that, one day in the future, Democrats could be competitive in West Virginia again?  Yes.  But, in one crucial way, West Virginia resembles the pre-Civil War South.  In today’s West Virginia, coal mining is a key industry.  While only 2% of the state directly works in coal (like only a tiny percentage of Southerners owned slaves), coal is the second largest industry (beyond the health sector) based on GDP generated.  In many parts of the state, if coal mining stopped tomorrow, there would be significant job losses in many areas of the state which would also cause retail and service industries to decline in those areas.  And the number who see their livelihood as tied to coal is a large enough percent to make the pro-coal vote a significant block in West Virginia elections.  This puts Democrats in a bind.  It is essential for the nation and the world for the U.S. to reduce its reliance on coal.  But recognizing and acting on this necessity hurts Democrats in West Virginia.   As such, the reality is that without Joe Manchin running, it is almost certain that Democrats will lose the Senate race in West Virginia.   And given how close the Senate is currently divided, the loss of this seat will make it harder for Democrats to have a majority in the Senate after the 2024 election. Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections, Senate | Tagged , , | Comments Off on A Manchin-less Senate