Thoughts On The Anchorage Mayor's Race

The only thing I know for certain, the current mayor needs to be retired.  He was the surprise winner last time in a runoff.  He was a candidate because of the pandemic and homelessness.  He was backed by those who opposed masks and the decisions to quarantine in Alaska and Anchorage.  A key group supporting him live in Geneva Woods, a neighborhood of large houses in mid-town, where his supporters were strongly opposed to the Municipality buying a Best Western Hotel that had seen better days and turning it into a shelter for the homeless.  Easy walking distance to their snooty neighborhood and that was unacceptable.  

His supporters have disrupted Assembly meetings, yelled epithets are LGBTQ and Jewish Assembly members, wore yellow stars and compared the restrictions due to COVID to be like the Holocaust (which they normally would deny even happened.)  

Many of his appointees have long gone.  One of his former City Managers is suing the city for about three quarters of a million dollars,  His approach to homeless folks was a mass shelter in a giant tent.  I'm still fairly certain that if we track down why he wanted to buy that tent, we'd find some sort of financial or political connection.  Snow removal has been a disaster.  

So, the mayor is not on my list.  

Suzanne LaFrance was on the Assembly for much of the Mayor's tenure, chair part of that time.  She early on announced she was running for Mayor.  This is a non-partisan race and I'm not sure if she is even registered as one part or another.  She's done a reasonably good job and certainly knows the details of what's gone on in Anchorage.  I even interviewed for six or seven years ago when she was a first time candidate running for the Assembly.  She was pretty raw, but dedicated.  She's learned a lot over the years.  

But then Chris Tuck announced he was running. Tuck is a Democrat who has been on the Anchorage School Board, but then spent more time in Juneau as a representative - including stints as minority and majority leader.  I met him when I blogged the legislature in 2010 and he's a very personable guy and has a reputation of being able to work out compromises across party lines.  He's got strong labor connections, yet LaFrance has garnered a lot of union support.  I was told he voted for legislation that labor opposed (or vice versa) but I have no details.  

Tuck's entry into the race threw the liberal challenge against the incumbent mayor into confusion.  Both were good candidates.  LaFrance supporters started pointing out that Tuck was anti-abortion.  He's never denied that, but he's also said he votes for what his constituents want, and to my knowledge, as a politician has gone along with the other Democrats on abortion issues.

Then Bill Popp joined the race.  Popp has been head of the Economic Development Council for many years and says he's never registered in either party.  Before Trump hijacked the Republican party, Popp's interest in business and economics would have aligned him with more traditional Republicans, at least with the Chamber of Commerce,  though I do not know his stance on social issues.  He has good knowledge of Anchorage.  

This race requires a candidate to get at least 45% to win.  The sense I get is that those who follow politics closely don't expect any of the candidates to reach that number.  

The question then is who will be in the runoff.  An article in the Anchorage Daily News today says the candidates suspect that Mayor Bronson will face one of the above three in a runoff.  

So, who to vote for?  I think LaFrance and Tuck would both make good mayors.  They're both level headed and decent people.  I suspect the same could be said for Popp, but I don't know him really, and my perception of him as part of the Chamber of Commerce crowd takes him out of my top two.  (Lots of people join the Chamber of Commerce, not because they are politically aligned with their fairly conservative business view of the world, but because that's where many of the key players gather weekly.  My uninformed sense is Popp probably fits in with the Chamber crowd comfortably.)

So, LaFrance or Tuck?  

I was happy when LaFrance announced her candidacy.  I was thrown into a conundrum when Tuck announced his interest in the race.  LaFrance seemed to be more intimately knowledgeable of City dealings because of her position on the Assembly and dealing with all the issues for the last six years from there.  

Tuck seemed like an interloper, though he represents Anchorage and is an astute politician who has paid close attention to the city in which his district lies.  I'd note that when Elvi Gray Jackson announced her US Senate run in 2022, Tuck announced he would run for her Alaska State Senate seat.  That avoided a run against fellow Anchorage legislator Andy Josephson.  Both had been redistricted into the same district.  But when Gray-Jackson saw what was developing in the US Senate race, she pulled out and signed back on to run for her State Senate seat.  At this point, Tuck pulled out altogether - choosing not to run against either fellow Democrat.  I think that reflects positively on his moral compass and willingness to support his fellow Democratic legislators.  

It also suggests to me that he didn't make the decision to run against LaFrance for mayor lightly.  

As I watched the lists of people signing up to support LaFrance or Tuck, it appeared to me that people who knew LaFrance the Assembly member, supported her.  Those who knew Tuck from his rule in the State legislature supported him.  

I think they'd both do a good job.  My biggest concern is that they'll cancel each other out and Popp ends up in a runoff with Bronson.  And, again, I think Popp will be a competent mayor, but not necessarily someone aligned with a forward looking stance.  (By that I mean, someone who recognizes that Climate Change is the biggest challenge facing humanity and business has been a prime supporter of policies that have brought us to this climate crisis.)

I've picked one of the two.  My absentee ballot is still in the house.  I've got some time yet before I have to turn it in.  I'm on pause just in case something happens to sway me toward the other candidate.  I'm not expecting anything to change, but just in case.  

The only conclusion I have come to firmly is that Anchorage should switch to Ranked Choice Voting.  Then folks can vote for the first and second (etc.) choices.   

Mail-In Ballots And Moms For Liberty Candidates - Anchorage Elections

This was going to be a quick post just showing that we got our mail-in ballots for the Anchorage election coming up April 2, 2024.  

But then it got more complicated when I started writing about the School Board candidates challenging the three incumbents.  Two of them are Moms for Liberty candidates.  I had indications and an allegation of this in yesterday's draft.  But I got a bit more evidence today.  So keep scrolling down and do check the Moms for Liberty link which takes you to the Southern Poverty Law Offices listing of Moms for Liberty.  

These candidates have won elections because they hide their real objectives until they get elected.  Instead they spout generalities that we're all in favor of.  That's why I decided to make this more than simply a post on the ways to get your mail-in ballot in to election central to be counted.  

The Municipality of Anchorage moved to mail-in elections several years ago.  Basically that means that ballots are mailed to all registered voters about three weeks before the election and that on election day there aren't 100 or more polling places all over the Municipality where people can vote.

BUT, if you don't want to figure out and pay for postage, there are lots of drop boxes around town where you can take your ballot.  

And if you want to actually vote in a voting booth, there are places for that too - at City Hall, Loussac Library, or the Eagle River Town Center.

If you want more information, go to the Municipal Election website.  

School Board Alert

I'm trying to think back to how often I've actually recommended candidates on this blog.  My sense is that it's not normal, but that in times when I felt strongly, I probably have.  Or maybe I just did blog posts about candidates which gave factual information that made clear my preferences. 

We are in extremely perilous times in 2024.  Nationally, the Republican candidate for president has done so many things to signal that he will use the office of president to further his personal interests and abandon the Constitution.  He already tried, ineptly, the first time round, but he'll be better prepared the second time.  If you haven't looked at Project 2025  (you can start with the policy agenda, but every item is a blueprint for an authoritarian dictatorship), then you should, and share it with everyone you know.

But this is a Municipal election, so I won't dwell on national issues yet.  Except to say that the Republicans not only had a 30 year plan to take over the Supreme Court - which they have now accomplished - but also to take over state and local legislative bodies, including school boards.  

Are they doing that in Anchorage?  It appears so.

 Moms for Liberty has officially had their first meeting in Anchorage and has at least two school board members in Mat-Su.  

These candidates are not making it easy for people to see what they stand for.  

While I can't verify [actually, while writing this I did get verification, see below] that the candidates opposing the three incumbents are from Moms for Liberty, there are indications that one or more are.  But that's how they get elected - by speaking in generalities at forums and then when they get elected they push book banning and LGBTQ+ bashing, and erasing Blacks from history lessons.

There are three incumbents running for school board.  They all showed up for the Alaska Black Caucus candidate forum.  Only one of the challengers - Angela Frank - was there.  Frank answered a number of questions with "I don't know" and expressions of cluelessness on her face.  But I admire her for showing up and putting herself through this.  

The other two challengers - Chelsea Pohland and Kay Schuster - didn't show up before this audience at all.  You can also see, in the video below, that the three incumbents didn't answer in platitudes and generalities.  They answered in detailed specifics about programs, with numbers, and with programs they want to keep improving.  

Are the three challengers MAGA and Moms for Liberty?  It does appear that Chelsea Pohland and Kay Schuster are, at least, in agreement with Moms for Liberty ideas.

In terms of what they say about themselves, it's hard to tell.  Chelsea Pohland has a Facebook page for her campaign.  It doesn't really tell us what she's for, but it does have 

• pictures of her with Mayor Dave Bronson and fellow candidate challenger Kay Schuster
• fundraiser announcements which include Jamie Allard and Dave Stieren among the sponsors

The FB page also had a link to a campaign website (which I couldn't find via Google) which offers general platitudes that tell us nothing about her actual values or the programs she'd push for:

"My vision for the Anchorage School Board is built on a commitment to excellence, inclusivity, innovation, and transparency. I aim to bring my experience as a business owner and a community leader to bring together a collaborative approach to decision making, ensuring that our schools are equipped to offer every child a chance to thrive in an ever changing world. 

As we look to the future, my message and drive is clear, to be a champion to the cause of education in Anchorage with passion, integrity, and a solid foundation built on transparency. I am here to serve as a voice for our children, our families, and our community, advocating for a brighter, more inclusive future for all."

Inclusivity, transparency, and collaboration are NOT how Jamie Allard (a Pohland supporter) has operated as a State legislator.  

And here it is from an Anchorage Daily News story that was posted online a few hours ago:

"Two of the challengers — Pohland and Schuster — are supported by some prominent local conservatives, and Pohland said she is a member of Moms for Liberty, a national nonprofit focused on “parental rights” that has vowed to get more candidates onto school boards nationwide."

(I'd note that Governor Dunleavy has cited Parental Rights at least since 2015. See this post I wrote about his attempt to sabotage Erin's Law (a bill to require kids get taught how to avoid being victims of child abusers).  Dunleavy constantly cited parental rights as his reasons and that's when I discovered there was a national organization with that name whose goal is to move public money to spend on private schools. Knowing that helps one understand his continued cuts to public schools and his strong support of charter schools.) 

 I did have other such indicators that I had already in this post:

Anchorage needs well prepared school board members who will work for all students and not a MAGA / Moms for Liberty agenda. Chelsea Pohland has been endorsed by Jamie Allard, who has locked down the Ed Committee for the past 2 weeks and she received a donation from Judy Eledge pic.twitter.com/NGqI1JVOoU

— Alaska998 (@seinerak) March 11, 2024

And here's Blue Alaskan's post about Pohland supporter Jamie Allard.

So, I'm posting this information while people are just getting their mail-in ballots so that they know that:

• one of the challengers (Chelsea Pohland) has said she was a member of Moms for Liberty
• another's campaign (Kay Schuster) is closely aligned with Pohland's campaign 
• the third challenger (Angela Frank) really knows nothing about the school board based on her answers at the Black Caucus candidate forum (see video above), and she's supported by someone who supports the other two challengers. 

I thought I could add the Mayor's race in here too, but this got much longer than I expected.  (That happens often enough that probably I should start expecting it.)

Other Links about Moms for Liberty

• Wikipedia
• New Republic: Moms for Liberty Is Slowly Imploding, and That’s Bad for MAGA in 2024
• AP:  Moms for Liberty reports over $2 million in revenue, with bulk of contributions from two donors
• Wired:  Moms for Liberty Is Tearing Itself Apart

On The Colorado Ballot Supreme Court Decision [UPDATED]

After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Colorado case and then the immunity case, I mused that the justices made an agreement to let Trump on the ballot in Colorado, but to not grant him immunity. 

It just seemed to me they were getting enough heat about losing the public's trust  - something Chief Justice Roberts has on occasion paid attention to - that maybe they decided to go in Trump's favor in one case and that they would decide against him in the other case.  This would make them look more 'objective.'

Today, they decided for Trump.  Not only did they decide for Trump, but they did so unanimously, sort of.  I haven't read the decision carefully enough, but I've read a few articles on the decision.  

Basically the five male justices not only decided the key point - whether Trump should stay on the ballot - but they went on to reach a few other conclusions.  

The women, starting with Amy Comey Barrett who wrote:

"I join Parts I and II–B of the Court’s opinion. I agree that States lack the power to enforce Section 3 against Presidential candidates. That principle is sufficient to resolve this case, and I would decide no more than that."

Sotomayor wrote what some legal scholars characterized as a dissenting opinion disguised as a concurring opinion.  

Some extra legal considerations:

I've checked the difference between a concurrent and dissenting opinion.  Basically, a concurrent opinion agrees with the decision, but not the reasoning.  A dissenting opinion disagrees with the decision and the reasoning.  I haven't tracked down what happens if there are more than one 'decisions' and someone agrees with one, but not the others.  Does that have to be a concurrent decision?  Or a dissenting decision?  Or could it be both?

A retired attorney friend told me to look up 'dicta.'  From

"Dicta in law refers to a comment, suggestion, or observation made by a judge in an opinion that is not necessary to resolve the case, and as such, it is not legally binding on other courts but may still be cited as persuasive authority in future litigation. Also referred to as dictum and judicial dicta.  A dissenting opinion is also generally considered obiter dictum."

Were the majority conclusions that Barrett criticized then dicta, because they weren't necessary to resolve the case?  Or are they legally binding?   

UNANIMOUS DECISION

SO, this was a unanimous decision.  It's important, and increasingly rare, for the Supreme Court to rule unanimously on such politically charged cases.  It's important to do so to show the court is in agreement to thwart backlash from the public.  

Chief Justice Earl Warren worked hard to get all the justices to agree on the controversial Brown v Board of Education, the landmark ruling that racially segregated public schools were not Constitutional.  From Wikipedia:

"By the early 1950s, Warren had become personally convinced that segregation was morally wrong and legally indefensible. Warren sought not only to overturn Plessy but also to have a unanimous verdict. Warren, Black, Douglas, Burton, and Minton supported overturning the precedent, but for different reasons, Robert H. Jackson, Felix Frankfurter, Tom C. Clark, and Stanley Forman Reed were reluctant to overturn Plessy.[112] Nonetheless, Warren won over Jackson, Frankfurter, and Clark, in part by allowing states and federal courts the flexibility to pursue desegregation of schools at different speeds. Warren extensively courted the last holdout, Reed, who finally agreed to join a unanimous verdict because he feared that a dissent would encourage resistance to the Court's holding. After the Supreme Court formally voted to hold that the segregation of public schools was unconstitutional, Warren drafted an eight-page outline from which his law clerks drafted an opinion, and the Court handed down its decision in May 1954.[113] In the Deep South at the time, people could view signs claiming "Impeach Earl Warren."[114]"

Why was today's decision unanimous?  Why didn't Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissent instead of concurring?  The obvious answer is that they agreed with the basic decision that Colorado didn't have the power to keep Trump off the ballot.  And that may well be true.  

But my hope is, as I said at the beginning, that Roberts got the Court to vote unanimously on this one in exchange for a unanimous decision on the immunity case.  Because Roberts sees two cases are so potentially explosive (though that didn't bother him with Dobbs), he wanted them to both be unanimous - one for Trump, one against him - to make the Court look less partisan at this time when the Court is under so much pressure because of precedent breaking cases like Dobbs and because of the corruption scandals surround Justice Thomas and others.  

But I also have some reservations.  

• I'm not sure Roberts could get such a commitment from the more conservative judges
• Even if he could, I'm not sure they will honor any such commitment, just as Mike Johnson didn't honor the commitment to pass the Ukrainian assistance if there was a border bill.

However, to grant a past president, even a sitting president, immunity is ludicrous.  "No man is above the law" is the "Treat your neighbor as you would have him treat you" of the US legal system.  It doesn't always happen, but it's the standard.   

Even if Roberts can't get a unanimous decision, he should minimally be able to pull Kavanaugh into such a decision along with the liberal justices and himself.  

I think the arguments for keeping Trump off the ballot in Colorado were compelling.  But Colorado has been voting Democratic presidential candidates since 2008.  So keeping him on the ballot is probably not going to change the election.  But the implications of the majority decision do seem to have long term effects.  But let's just hope we don't have any other presidential candidates who have plotted insurrection of the United States.

That's my thinking.  It's not a prediction, because in these perilous times, predictions are like throwing paper into the wind.  Treat this as wishful speculation.  

You can read the 20 page decision yourself below.  

Read Supreme Court decision... by kballuck1

[March 5, 2024 UPDATE:  This podcast by three attorneys - Leah Litman, Kate Shaw, and Melissa Murray - takes a pretty dim view of the decision and probably makes my hypothesis seem like desperate wishful thinking.  It's worth listening to.  Just click on the link.]

Does The 14th Amendment Section 3 Apply To Trump?

 In one of the amicus briefs before the Supreme Court, attorneys Vikram Amar and Akhil Amar makes a very compelling case that Section 3 does in fact apply to Donald J. Trump.  But he adds to the debate the historical background to the language in the Section.  I encourage you to read the Brief.  It's written in very clear and plain English and tells a remarkable story of why it was written to disqualify people like Donald J. Trump from the Presidency.

He tells us that many aspects of the Constitution and its Amendments are not merely theoretical , rather they are there in response to specific"the event, the evil, the mischief" and that Justices did best when they 

"Over the centuries, America’s best constitutional interpreters, both on and off the bench, have generally excelled when they first spotted and then heeded the key historical episode—the event, the evil, the mischief—that prompted a given patch of constitutional text.

For example, the Constitution forbids those under age thirty-five from the presidency. Why? Because of a concern about dynasties—young favorite sons of famous fathers, such as William Pitt the Younger, the British prime minister in 1787, who took office at age 24. The Constitution’s requirement that a president be “natural born” had nothing to do with C-section babies or Shakespeare’s Macbeth, and everything to do with the Founders’ anxieties about European noblemen who might seek political power in America. Article I’s rules for congressional membership were crafted with Englishman John Wilkes in mind, as were the later rules of the Fourth Amendment. The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment repudiated specific language in Dred Scott. The equality commands of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment aimed especially at ending Black Codes in the Deep South. In affirming fundamental rights from state and local abridgment, Section One had centrally in mind—among other things—the urgent need to protect freedom of speech, freedom of worship, and the right to keep guns for personal protection."

Much of the brief discusses the historical events that cause Section 3 to be written the way it was:  John Floyd's actions, as President Buchanan's Secretary of War to move soldiers from and ammunition to Southern and his attempts to prevent the newly elected President Abraham Lincoln from being sworn in as President by Congress.

In the end, this momentous case is easier than it may at first seem, once one understands the historical events that triggered Section Three.

The insurrectionary betrayals perpetrated by Floyd and other top officials in the lame-duck Buchanan Administration went far beyond the abandonment of southern forts. They also involved, through both actions and inactions of Floyd and his allies, efforts to prevent President-elect Lincoln from lawfully assuming power at his inauguration.

Even before the inauguration, alarms rang out in Congress about the First Insurrection already underway. On February 1, 1861, Pennsylvania’s Representative John W. Killinger declared on the House floor that “preparations are actually threatened to take possession of this Capitol, and prevent the inauguration of the President elect. So far has the conspiracy progressed, that it . . . holds within its grasp the sworn officers of the Government. . . . Before Mr. Lincoln is inaugurated, this District will be the theater of commotion, and it may be, of violence.”11 Later that month, Killinger’s fellow Pennsylvanian James Hepburn Campbell echoed this point about oath-breaking insurrectionists: “[T]his treasonable conspiracy, to resist the inauguration by force of arms, . . . has drawn within its fatal vortex chiefs of the Cabinet.”12 And on February 18, 1861, Floyd’s successor in the War Department—Joseph Holt, himself true to his oath—confirmed that oath-breaking insurrectionists such as Floyd had indeed aimed to prevent the inauguration: (emphasis added)

But in one obvious and high-profile respect, Section Three as enacted went far beyond the early draft. It referred to all insurrections, past and future, and not merely to “the late insurrection” of the 1860s. It laid down a rule for the benefit of generations yet unborn—for us today, if only we are wise enough and faithful enough to follow its words as written and intended. (emphasis added)

Why is this important?  I imagine most readers have already figured it out.  Amar is showing the Justices that the language in Section 3 are based on actions that are almost identical to Trump's.  They leave no ethical way for the Justices to sidestep the fact that this Section was written to prevent people like Trump who had sworn and oath to protect the Constitution and then violated that oath by, Floyd's case and Trump's, trying to prevent the certification and inauguration of a duly elected President.  Not only in the 1860s, but "to all insurrections, past and future."

In addition to providing the story of Floyd, Amar also highlights the fact that Colorado, like every state, has the power to create its own election rules.  And Amar goes through, in Part Two, a list of twenty questions that have been raised by this case.  

In Part Two, we shall canvass a wide range of issues raised by this case and explain why many of them are easy. Of course the president is an “officer” covered by Section Three. Of course a detailed congressional statute is not necessary to implement Section Three. Of course an ineligible person is ineligible unless and until amnestied. Of course a person can engage in an insurrection with words as well as deeds. Of course an insurrection can begin locally. And so on.

Will five justices find this and other arguments persuasive?  We already know that Justice Thomas' wife strongly supported the insurrection and he has not recused himself from this case so far.  But what about the others?  

Leaving Trump off the ballot in Colorado well might make any difference.  Colorado has been more blue than red lately and Biden is likely to win there.  So those Justices who generally don't let the constitution get in their way to support the far right, could go along in this case.  But if Colorado doesn't have to put Trump on the ballot, how many other states - particularly purple states - copy them?  That will be the rub members of the Court's staunch right wingers.

 

About 92% Of IOWA GOP Didn't Vote For Trump

 

You might think from headlines like these that Trump scored a great victory in the Iowa caucuses yesterday.  Even headlines that just said he won are telling the wrong story.

They focused on the horse race.  Just on the candidates and their votes.

The real story for me is about the GOP who simply didn't vote.  

Let's look at this chart from @analogmeat on Spoutible:

I've checked the numbers and they're good on the results percentages, but the Iowa Capitol Dispatch says that as of last week  there were 687,000 registered Republicans voters in Iowa, fewer than in the chart.

The real story, it seems to me is this:

Barely 8% of Iowa registered GOP voters voted for Trump.

Just under 8% of Iowa registered GOP voters voted for candidates other than Trump.  

About 84% of Iowa registered GOP voters DID NOT VOTE.

Put another way, 92% of Iowa registered GOP voters DID NOT VOTE FOR TRUMP.  

That seems to me to be the big story.  Most GOP stayed home.  Sure the weather was bad, but even so, that sounds like a huge vote of no confidence for the GOP front runner.  Or for the other GOP candidates for that matter.  

Maybe I'm missing something here.  Maybe only a small percentage of Iowa voters have participated in the caucuses historically.  But if that's the case, it's the media horserace coverage of elections - who's winning and by how much - that have made this farce into something of national significance.  

I'm sure Mike in Iowa will fill me in if I'm wrong.  

"politically fraught with peril"

Sen. Lisa Murkowski said that it may be legal for state courts to disqualify former President Donald Trump from running in the 2024 election, but that doing so would be “politically fraught with peril.” https://t.co/1eLC8XvjAX

— Anchorage Daily News (@adndotcom) December 23, 2023

So imagine, Arnold Schwarzenegger decides to run for President and he's getting good polling results.  But someone sues to keep him off the ballot because he wasn't a natural born United States citizen.  

The Constitution says clearly:

"Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Would Sen. Murkowski or any of the others talking about "fraught with political peril" say we shouldn't enforce the Constitution because it would be "fraught with political peril" to do so? 

Well that's exactly what is happening with Murkowski and others who want to keep Trump's name on the Colorado ballot.   As President, he, at the very least, gave aid and comforted those trying to overthrow the election of Joe Biden by storming Congress and stopping the ratification of the election. (And we don't even know who all he showed or sold secret documents to yet.)

Fourteenth Amendment  Equal Protection and Other Rights

Section 3 Disqualification from Holding Office

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Trump's denials are no different from the denials of any accused criminal who tries to twist words and find legal loopholes to avoid the legal consequences of their actions.  

Does he really have to be tried for insurrection?  We all watched it live.  We watched the Jan 6 committee reviews of video tape and listened to witnesses, many who were Trump appointees who were with him in the White House on January 6.  

We've heard the tape of Trump demanding of the Georgia officials: 

"All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have," Trump says, according to audio of the call. "There's nothing wrong with saying, you know, that you've recalculated."

He's a known liar and he knew he lost Georgia and was demanding the Georgia officials overturn the election by finding him the votes he needed.  

So what is this "political peril" everyone is so worried about?

First, I'd ask, when did we start inserting political consequences into court proceedings?  Yes, it's happened, but it isn't supposed to.  It's the rule of law, not the rule of the mob that courts are supposed to uphold.  

Second, what crystal ball does Murkowski have that tells her there will be political peril?  No one knows what will happen in the future.  So this is just conjecture of what might happen.  Sure, there are lots of Trump supporters who likely would be very angry.  

Propagandists on the Right will tell Trump's supporters that this was an illegal prevention of Trump's right to run for office.  Is that a reason to ignore the Constitution?  Absolutely not.  This is a phantom peril.  Of his most rabid supporters who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 

"Approximately 723 federal defendants have had their cases adjudicated and received sentences for their criminal activity on Jan. 6. Approximately 454 have been sentenced to periods of incarceration. Approximately 151 defendants have been sentenced to a period of home detention, including approximately 28 who also were sentenced to a period of incarceration."  

"Approximately 714 individuals have pleaded guilty to a variety of federal charges, many of whom faced or will face incarceration at sentencing."

(DOJ, December 2023)

I'm not saying Trump supporters won't make lots of noise, maybe do damage, and generally try to reenact another January 6.  They have already made death threats against the  judges on the Colorado Supreme Court.  Trump isn't calling on his backers to stand down.  But we have police.  We have the National Guard.  We have the military if we have to put down another insurrection.

Third, if Trump is on the ballot and loses again, we are just as likely to face political peril then as now, maybe more so.  If they successfully bully the courts into ignoring the Constitution now, Trump supporters will be even more emboldened to try to prevent a peaceful transition again.  

Surely it's a better option to uphold the Constitution now and  remove Trump from the ballot now and let his various court cases play out. Let's face this speculated political peril now rather than later.     

Fourth, if the court ignores the plain language of the US Constitution and allows Trump to be placed on the Colorado ballot (and in other states if Colorado is successful in this), then we are already in political peril, we've already stumbled out of democracy and the rule of law.  The fact that we are even debating this says we are already one or more steps into the fascist dictatorship Trump has already said he would head.  

Fifth, Gerald Ford, after he became president when Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace, also feared political peril if Nixon were prosecuted.  So he pardoned Nixon.  While I think that decision was wrong - and set up a precedent for Trump to grasp at - it didn't violate the law or the Constitution.  The president has the power to pardon.  But when pardoning Nixon 

"Ford announced that he had pardoned Richard Nixon for all crimes he committed or "may have committed" while president" (Washington Post 2006)

which tells us he fully believed that an ex-president can be tried for acts committed while president - something Trump has said couldn't be done.   

Sixth, Murkowski and others have said that the people should have the final say by voting.  But no matter how much people would want to vote for Schwartzeneger or Trump, the two are constitutionally ineligible to be president.  We don't vote on whether to ignore the Constitution.  

"Political Peril" here is the bogey man the Right (and some on the Left) are using to justify ignoring the clear language of the Constitution.  Remember, this fight is for the man who spent years spreading the lies about Obama being born in Kenya and not being a natural born US citizen.  

Trump's whole strategy is to cause distrust of every US institution and then to say that "I alone can fix it."   The idea of "political peril" is part and parcel of his game plan.  Democracies don't make exceptions for bullies who threaten violence if they don't get their way.  

That is exactly what is happening here.  Arnold Schwarzenegger is NOT a natural born US citizen and is not qualified to run for president. 

Donald Trump supported an insurrection to overthrow the vote of the people and maintain his position as president even though he lost the popular and electoral college votes.  And he isn't qualified to run for president.  

Let's face whatever peril lies ahead now instead of next November when that peril might reappear if US voters vote for Biden over Trump once again.  Let's stop that peril now rather than let the Trump machine work to more effectively falsify the election results than they did in 2020.  

US Political Accountability Is Badly Broken

[There are so many forces and issues intertwined.  Every day there are new shocking reports to support one thing or another that I argue here.  This is several drafts along and so I'm just going to post it.  Yes, we are in crisis and I'll probably be writing more about the nature of the crisis.  Here the focus in on the lack of accountability.]

The reports of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' benefits from wealthy benefactors who have interests in the outcome of Supreme Court cases has already told us things weren't working.  

The fact that people who participated in the January 6 insurrection are still in their Congressional seats and voting like other members of Congress, also tells us this.

The fact that most Republicans in Congress voted against Trump's impeachments, and continue to support him publicly and take no action on corrupt Republican Senators and Members of Congress, tells us that accountability is broken. 

The report on Rep. George Santos says it once again, loud and clear.  Our accountability of elected officials and Supreme Court justices is broken.  From the Table of Contents of the report released last week:: 

"III. FINDINGS........................................................................................................ 10

A. OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 10

B. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW, HOUSE RULES, AND OTHER

APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT ......................................................................... 13

 1. 2. 3.

C.

1. 2. 3.

Campaign Finance Violations............................................................................ 13 Willful and Knowing Financial Disclosure Violations ...................................... 37 Lack of Diligence and Candor During the ISC Investigation............................ 48

OTHER ALLEGATIONS REVIEWED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE..................................... 51 

Sexual Misconduct Allegation ............................................................................ 51 Conflict of Interest Violations ............................................................................ 52 Additional Allegations Charged by the Department of Justice.......................... 54"

You can read the complete report here. 

WHAT DO I MEAN BY BROKEN?

One could argue that the release of this report on Santos, and his subsequent announcement that he will not be running for reelection, shows that there is accountability.  

The problem is that we have known of evidence of widespread wrongdoing by Santos since shortly after he was elected.  Nevertheless, he's been allowed to serve as a Member of Congress, influencing US public policy through his committee work, public announcements, and votes all this time.  And unless the House votes to expel him, he'll continue doing that until his successor is sworn in.  

In most any other job, if employees are found to have lied on their applications or resumes, have been found to have violated organizational rules, or state or federal laws, they can be fired immediately.  At the very least they can be put on suspension and not allowed to continue using their position for personal gain or to otherwise work against the interests of the organization.  It's trickier to remove an elected official because one can argue 'they were elected by the people in their district." But we still have procedures to do it.  Republicans just won't do it for one of their own.  

Accountability Too Slow

Santos shouldn't have lasted this long.  Trump is using all the courts' protections for the innocent to delay his trials as long as possible.  Just the other day Judge Cannon is allowing delays that mean the classified documents case won't be decided before the 2024 election.  This clearly should be an expedited trial.  The consequences of stealing secret documents, showing them to unauthorized eyes, and probably selling them to enemy nations should be high priority and fast tracked.  

Supreme Court justices continue to rule on cases that have horrendous consequences for democracy.  Senator Sheldon Whitehouse has outlined four types of cases on which the conservative  Justices consistently vote together to help large corporation get their way:  [The link includes his time at the Amy Coney Barrett hearings.  This court background discussion begins around minute 21 on the video.]

1. unlimited dark money; 
2. knock down the civil jury trial down; 
3. weaken regulatory agencies  
4. voter suppression and gerrymandering  on that weaken government powers to regulate, voting rights, women's rights, etc. even though it's now clear that there is no accountability for clearly corrupt judges, and we're moving very slowly if at all to correcting that.  

In other presentations I've heard him include anti-labor cases.  The point is that these are all decisions that significantly weaken opposition to large corporations.  And there are further conflicts of interest due to Justices owning stock that is affected by their rulings on cases before them.  

Corrupted Officials

Republicans in the US Senate refused to impeach Trump despite overwhelming evidence of wrong doing.  They've allowed January 6 co-conspirators to remain in Congress.  

• the lust for power and fear of losing it - Republicans are afraid to buck the party because they fear  loss of GOP funds and the Republican voters in the next primary. They won't hold their colleagues accountable because they fear losing their majority in the House.  They support a Supreme Court that looks the other way in the face of gerrymandering that keeps many Republicans in power.
• the lust for the prestige of being in Congress - Maybe they don't care that much for power, but rather they enjoy the prestige and privileges that come with being a Member of Congress.  The same issues arise as for the lust for power.
• the lust for money for campaigns and personal benefit - Money for campaigns is intertwined with lust for power and prestige.  But Members of Congress also get hefty salaries, travel, health insurance, and retirements.  Additionally there are other opportunities to get richer than they already are.  Staying loyal to their corrupt party seems to be the safest way to hold onto these benefits.  
• mental slowness - I first labeled this 'utter stupidity' but that seemed too simplified.  

• short term thinking - as Republicans reveled in the ending of Roe, they didn't see the backlash that was coming.  And while they feel the need to cater to rabid Trump cultists to win the primary, they fail to see how their actions (and inactions) mean greater risks of losing in the general elections.  And even if they are in a highly gerrymandered district and will win, they are likely to lose the majority in the House.
• sheltered thinking - their beliefs and prejudices are reinforced by the people they spend their time with.  They see people who don't agree with them as caricatures  of evil rather than as rational human beings with different, but reasonable world views
• lack of empathy for others - whether they are sociopaths or have other afflictions that allow them no sense of understanding of other people's issues and problems
• inability to break from outdated (if ever even accurate) explanations of how the world works - things like individual responsibility even in a society that favors some over the many; religious and racial stereotypes; belief in the correlation between work and worthiness even as automation makes much work unnecessary and wealthy people need not work at all; belief that money and power will solve all their problems; 
• lack of analytic abilities - they can't understand the complexities of modern life and are stuck on simplistic and black and white explanations

Additionally, Republicans in the Senate allow Senator Tuberman to block appointments of military officers and others to delay the appointment of judges and high government officials.  For various reasons - 

Blocking military appointments only hurts our military readiness and can only help our military adversaries.  Blocking judicial and senior civil service positions, some argue, fits in with the Project 2025 [see below] blueprint, by keeping these positions vacant making it easier for Trump, in a second presidency, to fill them with his loyalists.  

The Republicans in Congress allow (and in many cases support) all the dragging out of these delays.  They refuse to work with Democrats to speed up the accountability of the egregiously guilty.  

HOW ARE THINGS DIFFERENT TODAY THAT MAKES THIS MORE OF A PROBLEM?

In the past, the idea of Democracy was never at stake.  Notice I said 'idea of Democracy.'  For non-whites and non-Christians democracy in the US has been spotty to non-existent.  Voting rights didn't exist for Blacks in the South and their courts were made up of all white juries. US citizens of Japanese descent were locked into camps during WW II and their property taken over by whites.  Immigrants have always been vilified.  Native Americans were displaced and massacred.   

But for white politicians, the idea of Democracy was pretty sacred.  The US was touted as the bastion of democracy in a world of dictators.  

Today, that's not the case.  To say that the election is about Democracy vs. Authoritarianism (whether that be Fascist, White Christian, or whatever democratic antonym is probably not that crucial)  simply is NOT an exaggeration.

You think people like me are alarmist?  Even long time Right Wing Anchorage Times and then Anchorage Daily News columnist Paul Jenkins says democracy is at stake.

"Trump is a danger to US democracy. How can so many good people still support him?"

Just take a look at Project 2025.  (The link is to Wikipedia which is written in a calm, pseudo-objective tone. If democracy and fascism are both equally moral and viable option, that might be ok.  But they aren't.  If you don't read it carefully, you might not see the real danger.  Sentences like:

"Project 2025 seeks to place the entire Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government under direct presidential control, eliminating the independence of the Department of Justice, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Trade Commission and other agencies.[4]"

For people who don't have a deep understanding of how our government works, that sentence might not be alarming.  But trust me, it is the path to an all powerful president.    

Even NPR's (Here and Now) interview with a key author of Project 2025, while pushing back some, doesn't really give the sense of how this is a full blown attempt to overthrow Democracy.  While they talk about getting rid of 50,000 civil servants by making them 'at will' employees (who can be fired for no reason), they don't mention the long struggle to set up a merit system which hires people based on qualifications for the job rather than political allegiance and which protects civil servants against political firing by requiring their dismissal be based on just cause (such as not doing their job as required by law.)  Despite GOP rhetoric, staffing the government with educated and dedicated civil servants is a good thing if you want a government that runs well and provides the public the services they want and need.  But not if you want to use government to carry out your personal vendettas.

Project 2025 is a Heritage Foundation plan to give the next Republican president the power to obliterate the obstacles that would keep a Trump from controlling the US government as he sees fit.  It eliminates safeguards, it puts Trump's sycophants into power - the kind of people who told him the 2020 election was rigged and that he actually won.  It's a blueprint for taking down Democracy and setting up an authoritarian government.  It's written by the type of people spent 40 years plotting to pack the Supreme Court with Right wing extremists who ignored precedent to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Prior to the Trump presidency, we had lots of lines that politician's didn't cross.  They respected the many unwritten rules because, for most, they had a sense of decency and propriety.  For other because violating them would lead to censure or expelling.  But Trump and his supporters see those lines as challenges.  How many can they mow right over?

Trump violated every such rule that got in his way.  To the point that overthrowing Democracy and replacing the Constitution with the Bible seem to be reasonable to large numbers of people - including the current Speaker of the US House of Representatives.   

We've got January 6 enablers still serving in the Congress.  This would not have been accepted before Trump.  

The Heritage Foundation is behind Project 2025 - aligned surely with the Federalist Society that planned the takeover of the Supreme Court for forty years.  This is not just a band of crazies ready to attack at Trump's command.  Those crazies are are more sophisticated and more than willing to use Trump's cult as their attack dogs.  

The Supreme Court, restructured by Federalist Society judges that Trump dutifully appointed, has overturned long standing precedents - like Roe v Wade - even though each of the Trump nominees swore that such long standing precedents would be respected.  

• Political Violence Is One Of Those Lines

Nancy Pelosi's husband was attacked in her house in San Francisco by a Right Wing conspiracy consuming fanatic and the prospect of more political violence aimed at elected officials, judges, and election officials is on the rise.  

From AP via Anchorage Daily News Nov 19, 2023

The Trump types are using the slow and deliberate court processes to subvert justice.  We've never had an ex-president under multiple indictments who was also running for president again.  There's an urgency to these cases because they are running up against the election deadline.  The Trump team ignores the basic standards and pushes everything way past normal standards of conduct.  Because an ex-president is on trial and because the court's aren't used to this kind of a full court press, they continue to use constraint and deference as if we were in normal times.  We aren't.  I'm not asking judges to go around the law. I'm asking them to stand up to the bully defendants and not tolerate the flouting of their orders.  

SO, ARE YOU SAYING DEMOCRACY IS DOOMED?

If we don't take every action necessary to prevent Trump or any Republican from winning the 2024 election, Democracy as we know it is doomed.  

Senate and House Obstacles 

The US Senate is, in essence, gerrymandered by the Constitutional requirement that every state has two US Senators.  That wasn't a big deal in 1800 when state populations were comparatively (by today's standards) even.  But today state's like Alaska and Wyoming have fewer than one million people and get two Senators just like California with 39 million people.  And the smaller, more rural states tend to be redder.

"With the even split in the current Senate, the 50 Democratic senators represent 56.5% of the voters, while the 50 Republican senators represent just 43.5% of the voters. In 2018, the Democrats won nearly 18 million more votes for Senate than the Republicans, but the Republicans still gained two seats." (From the Brookings Institute)

In the House, the slim Republican majority is almost certainly the result of Republican gerrymandering of districts so that Democrats were either pushed into one or two districts or scattered into Republican majority districts.  

The US Supreme Court Leans Way Right

It used to be that Republican Supreme Court Justices used the Constitution as their guide for making decisions.  Today's Federalist Society judges use a pro-business ideology to find ways to twist the Constitution to favor the rich over the poor.  Individual rights - like abortion rights, voting rights - suffer.  How the Supreme Court will rule if the 2024 election is challenged by Trump does not give me hope.  

Another Insurrection, but larger

Trump persuaded lots of people to come to the Capitol on January 6 to try to stop the Congress from ratifying the election.  Many of them have been convicted of various crimes.  How many others are out there who are ready to make armed protests should Trump lose again?  

People support Trump for various reasons.  The US economy has shifted and good working class jobs no longer pay as well or are lifetime guarantees.  The array of GOP tax cuts for the rich over the years has created a an unbalanced division of wealth, with the top 10% controlling nearly 70% of US  wealth!

People's lives and prospects are not as good as they were.

With greater legal protections for women and people of color, there are more people competing for jobs.  Before the 1960s, white males were the only people competing for the better jobs.  The Republicans have convinced many of those white males, that the decline is because women and non-whites are taking over.  That's what the extreme abortion laws are about and the diatribes against immigration.  Arrows aimed straight at the emotional parts of the Trump cult members.  

IS THERE ANY HOPE?

Part of me takes hope from the elections, particularly those related for abortion, since the 2022 election.  The vast majority of voters do not support Trump.  It's possible the Trump team and the wealthy conservatives they are proxy for to simply collapse.  I hope that happens.  But I also don't want to be in shock the way we were after Clinton lost in 2016.  We need to be in shock now.  If we work harder than necessary to win, that's better than not trying hard enough and losing.

NPR reported that 80 million people DID NOT VOTE in 2020.  That's a lot of votes.  Convincing 10 million of them that Trump means the end of Democracy, would save Democracy, for now.  

But with all the lies and conspiracy theories, with mainstream media acting like the GOP is a normal party to be treated with respect, and with the many calls for violence, I'm convinced that the Trump campaign will do everything it can to obstruct voters, to subvert the election, and to repeat Jan 6 type insurrections, but with more discipline, if they lose again.  Trump's biggest incentive right now would appear to get back the power to pardon, starting with pardoning himself.  

So the votes have to be so strongly for the Democrat that there is no question about who won.  And that will take a lot of grassroots organizing to get non-voters educated and voting.