Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elections. Show all posts

Sunday, June 28, 2026

Supreme Court Hearing On Daniel J. Sullivan v Alaska Division of Elections Appeal On Zoom Only

 I sent in an application to use my camera at the Alaska Supreme Court chambers tomorrow for the hearing. 

I got this email back from Meredith Montgomery, who, among other things, does media relations for the Alaska Supreme Court.  She's working on Sunday!

"The oral argument will be on ZOOM only; the courtroom will NOT be open. To watch, please tune into KTOO’s Gavel TV, which can be found at www.ktoo.org/gavel. In addition to being able to watch live, the argument will be archived immediately for viewing at any time in the future. If you are going to reproduce images from a screen shot, the “KTOO” watermark must be visible or attribution to KTOO given."

Related posts:

June 22, 2026 Senator Dan Sullivan Does Not Want To Run Against Dan Sullivan [UPDATE] 

June 23, 2026 The Dan J Sullivan Removal From Ballot Hearing

June 25, 2026  Daniel J. Appeal Of Division Of Elections Decision Plays Out In Nearly Empty Court Room

June 26, 2026 It's Almost 7pm -I Can't Find The Sullivan Decision - [Update - His Name Goes Back On The Ballot] 

Monday, June 29, 2026   Alaska Division Of Elections v Daniel J. Sullivan At Supreme Court

Monday, June 29, 2026   Supreme Court Keeps Daniel J. Sullivan On The Ballot 

Tuesday, June 30, 2026  Division of Election's Sample Ballot Leaves Off Daniel J's Party Affiliation

Posted by at 3:57 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, June 26, 2026

It's Almost 7pm -I Can't Find The Sullivan Decision - [Update - His Name Goes Back On The Ballot]

Yesterday Judge Matthews promised to have his decision completed by 4:30pm today.  From what I can tell (I expected lots of media outlets to be posting what he decided by the time I got back from my bike ride at 5:30pm.  Nada) he seems not to have communicated that decision to the world yet.  Maybe the lawyers have it.  It's not on the list of files on the court's "Most Requested Case Files" 

[UPDATE June 26, 2026 9pm - there are two more items just added to this list:

One is the judge's 32 page decision, explaining everything in detail before concluding:

"In summary, the Division's decision to exclude Mr. Sullivan from the primary ballot because it determined his declaration was not filed "in order to declare an actual good-faith candidacy for the Office of the United States Senator" was not based upon the constitutional requirements of Article l § 3, the Alaska statutes governing elections, or regulations promulgated by the Division.  Instead, the decision was based upon a new, previously unstated, "good-faith" criteria.  In addition, the Director's assertion that Mr. Sullivan seeks to confuse or misguide voters is not supported by a preponderance of evidence.  Instead, the Division accepted at face-value the assertions of the complaint and disregarded Mr. Sullivan's assertions. 

The Final Decision of the Division of Elections is VACATED.  Mr. Dan J. Sullivan is declared to be an eligible candidate for the office of United States Senator.  The Division shall include his name and affiliation with the Republican Party on the ballot for the August 18, 2026, primary election."

There's still 31 and a half pages for the attorney's on both sides to review, and for the State's attorney's to write in their appeal to the Supreme Court.  The clock is ticking to ballot printing deadline.]   

Everything else seems to be there.  You can even listen to the Oral Argument audio recording (second from the bottom.)


This is an important case.  Not just for Alaska, but for the US.  The initial complaint against Daniel J. Sullivan appearing on the ballot was filed by the National Republican Senatorial Committee.  The following two complaints were made by the Alaska Republican Party. The Dunleavy administration has frequently brought in Lower 48 attorneys to argue cases.  I suspect that in addition to trying to protect Republican Senator Sullivan in a close election, this is also a test case for getting unwanted challengers off of ballots around the country.   

For this case he's brought in the law firm of First and Fourteenth (for the Constitutional Amendments, not a street location.)  Chris Murray's bio at his law firm's website says:

"When the case is both controversial and has potentially significant impacts on the public, clients call Chris. His unique combination of experience in commercial and public law matters allows him to advise on and litigate high-stakes issues from emergency actions in elections and political matters to strategic commercial and public litigation involving issues of first impression or novel fact patterns. Chris represents a broad range of clients including businesses, political parties, trade associations, nonprofits, and even individuals in high-profile matters, both in trial and appeals. He advises on and regularly litigates federal and state constitutional issues touching on public policy, in contexts ranging from election recounts to strategic litigation against governments to preparing amicus briefs for appellate courts.

Chris also regularly advises clients on strategy for political participation and compliance with federal and state political disclosure laws."

The Alaska Current gives more on his right wing credentials. 

So it's probably better for the decision to come late, if it isn't right yet.  Anyone who's had to write something on a deadline, knows the pressure.  In this case, the deadline was one the judge imposed on himself.  

When I hear of a decision I'll add it to this post.   


Related posts:

June 22, 2026 Senator Dan Sullivan Does Not Want To Run Against Dan Sullivan [UPDATE] 

June 23, 2026 The Dan J Sullivan Removal From Ballot Hearing

June 25, 2026  Daniel J. Appeal Of Division Of Elections Decision Plays Out In Nearly Empty Court Room

June 26, 2026 It's Almost 7pm -I Can't Find The Sullivan Decision - [Update - His Name Goes Back On The Ballot]  (Current post that you're reading)

June 28, 2026

Posted by at 7:01 PM 1 comments
Labels: , ,

Thursday, June 25, 2026

Daniel J. Appeal Of Division Of Elections Decision Plays Out In Nearly Empty Court Room

 At 9:45am there were just a few people waiting outside courtroom 401a in Anchorage.  In the end, there were about 11 people there in the gallery.  There was a woman who I'm guessing was working the computer connections.  


 

Darden




No one with a speaking part, including the Judge, was in the courtroom.  The only person who had any role at all in this appeal that I could tell, was Dustin Darden.  He's a candidate in the US Senate race.  Dustin had submitted a brief, which the judge accepted as an Amicus Brief, in which he basically says that if Daniel J. can be bumped off the ballot, then what's to stop them from bumping off a candidate like himself.  



Judge Matthews was on a large screen in front of the courtroom with a background that similar, but not the same as the actual courtroom.  We never saw the attorneys on the big screen, though at the table for the parties -there was a small screen which had the view of the attorneys.  

The judge said he had the briefs from Darden and from the Alaska Republican Party and that they wouldn't speak at the hearing, but he'd consider them as amicus briefs. 

First Jeffrey Robinson representing Daniel J. spoke.  There really wasn't anything I noticed as new (not in the brief originally submitted) though he said he had added some things after reading the State's brief.  They all agreed, in the interest of speed, that if that became important later, they could take it up.  

Again, the basic argument was that there were only three criteria the state could use to exclude someone from the ballot - the ones in the Constitution  - at least 30 years old, at least nine years as a US citizen, and an inhabitant of the state when elected.  His client met all three criteria.  

He dismissed the State's claim that the administrative regs which called for not allowing names on the ballot that would mislead the public had to be removed.  It was the job of the Division of Elections to figure out how to write the names in a way that would distinguish them for the public, and the job of the campaign of Sen. Sullivan to alert the voters so they would know which one to vote for.  

He did mention a candidate in Louisiana who'd changed his name to None of the Above, but was not allowed on the ballot.

Chris Murray, represented the State Division of Elections.  He basically made the argument that the administrative code requires that the Division NOT put someone on the ballot that would mislead and confuse the public.  

The judge promised to have a decision by 4:30pm tomorrow (Friday) and if there is an appeal to the Supreme Court, there would be time.  

I would note that it seems I'd have been better off staying at home and connecting via Zoom.  The main benefit of going to the court house was that it was a nice day for a bike ride.


Some other takes:

 Liz Ruskin, Alaska Public Media

Mark Sabbatini, Juneau Independent

Thomas Lamb: Analyzing Politics That Control Our Lives  I don't know who Lamb is, other than he lives in Palmer, Alaska.  He goes through the Division of Elections arguments point by point and concludes: 

"Christopher O. Murray and Michael Francisco filed their brief on June 24, 2026. It is sophisticated, well-researched, and constitutionally wrong. Here is why, argument by argument"

Related posts:


Posted by at 11:10 PM 0 comments
Labels: , ,

Tuesday, June 23, 2026

The Dan J Sullivan Removal From Ballot Hearing

The Alaska House Judicial and State Affairs Committees held a joint meeting today to discuss the removal of US Senate candidate Daniel J. Sullivan from the primary ballot.  

The proceedings were polite, even cordial, though the Democrats and Republicans had very strong opposing views of what has happened.  I think the easiest way for the reader, is for me to break this down into several big questions:

  1. Was it legal for the Division of Elections to remove Daniel J. Sullivan from the ballot?
  2. What's in it for the Democrats?
  3. What's in it for the Republicans?
  4. If Daniel J. were on the ballot, would it hurt Daniel S?
  5. Are there bigger implications?
Let's look at these one at a time.  

1.  Was it legal for the Division of Elections to remove Daniel J. Sullivan from the ballot?

I think the answer is pretty clear:  No it was not legal to remove him from the ballot.

The Democrats and the three witnesses all repeatedly pointed out that there are only three qualifications to be  a  US Senate candidate.  They are listed in the US Constitution.  

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 3]

Basically 

  1. at least 30 years old
  2. a US citizen for at least nine years
  3. an inhabitant of the state when elected

That's it.  Nothing else matters because the US Constitution trumps all other laws or regulations.  NOTE: this applies to US Senate and US House races, not to state offices.

The Republicans made the case that Daniel J. Sullivan was not a serious candidate, that his intent was to mislead and confuse the voters.  They implied, but I didn't hear them say directly, that this was an attempt to steal votes from US Senator Dan Sullivan.  

They cited the state administrative code AAC 25.212 - Appearance of candidate's name on the ballot

Specifically they cited the part of the code that says:

(b) A candidate's name may not appear on a ballot . . . (2) in a manner that is confusing or misleading to voters or compromises the fairness or neutrality of the ballot.

Thus, they argue,  the Division Director had no choice but to remove his name, because it was confusing and misleading.  

All three witnesses and the Democratic members pointed out that thte Administrative Code did not supersede the US Constitution.  

They pointed out cases where other candidates were not removed from ballot.  They particularly focused on Eric Hafner, who ran for US House in Alaska in 2024, even though he had never been in Alaska, and was serving a 20 year sentence in a New York prison.  

The Democrats challenged his name being on the ballot (he was listed as a Democrat).  They argued that he was not and would not be an Alaskan inhabitant when elected.  The Supreme Court ruled that there was a possibility he would be paroled if he won and he was left on the ballot.  

Intent was not an issue, but rather whether he met the Constitutioal requirements.  In that case, the Republicans wanted him on the ballot in hopes that he would syphon off votes from the Democratic US Rep. Mary Peltola.  


2.  What's in it for the Democrats?

The Democrats argued that it was against the law to remove him.  Is there a chance having a second Republican Dan Sullivan on the ballot would help the Democratic candidate?  One would like to think they are doing this because they believe in the rule of law, and believe the law is being thwarted.  But there is also the possibility that if Daniel J. is on the ballot, he could pull votes away from Daniel S.   Let me address that in Question 4.  


3.  What's in it for the Republicans?

I heard frustration and anger from Republicans on the committee that a candidate that they did not vet or approve of  got on the ballot with a Republican label.  It was deceptive.  It was intended to confuse the voters.  It was particularly sneaky because his name was so similar to their front runner candidate.  

Republican Rep. McCabe, I believe, took the opportunity at the hearing to point out that this confusion wouldn't have happened when we had closed primaries and the parties could designate who could use the party's label.  Since, Republicans have gotten a referendum on the November ballot to repeal the Ranked Choice Voting, Open Primaries, and campaign funding limits that were originally established by referendum,  I'm guessing they'll use this case as a reason to vote for the current proposition to end all three (RCV, open primaries, and campaign financing limits and disclosure).

Given that the head of their party, President Trump is the greatest liar, dirty trickster, election denier in US history, one has to take their anger and righteousness with a grain of salt.  They support President Trump's every lie and nasty attack on Democrats, women, immigrants, LGBTQ+, journalists.  While I might accept that they believe that the Administrative Code was a legitimate basis for kicking Daniel J. off the ballot, the law is pretty clear.  

Again, looking at the actions of Trump administration, I can't take too seriously that the Republicans are supporters of the rule of law.  It seems more like they are supporters of rule of winning.  And it appears, at this point, they probably will win.  They claim that the ballots will be printed on June 28.  That's about five days away.  I haven't heard about any attorneys about to file a lawsuit to restore Daniel J.'s name to the ballot. *** Anything is possible, but it looks like a win for the Republicans.  (The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) made a complaint about Daniel J.'s candidacy and the Alaska Republican Party made two more complaints  to the Division of Elections, which is under the purview of Republican Lt. Governor Dahlstrom and Republican Director of the Division of Elections Beecher.

***I wrote this post last night and this morning I learned from  Alaska Public Media's Wesley Early that there is indeed a lawsuit that has been filed in Superior Court.  (Links to what they filed) I've only read it quickly, but right off the bat they ask the court, because of the June 28 ballot printing deadline, to either

  1. have his name put back on the ballot, or
  2. delay printing ballots until this is resolved ***
[And I've learned since, that the hearing will be in Superior Court at 10am Thursday June 25.]

And given the Trump administration's war of Democratic voters - the many moves to redistrict to eliminate Democratic districts, to suppress the Black vote, and otherwise bend the election results through manipulation, I can't help but wonder if this is a test to be used in other states.  Don't like a candidate?  Knock him off the ballot. But time it so there isn't time to appeal before you have to print the ballots.


4.  If Daniel J. were on the ballot, would it hurt Daniel S?

I started this section thinking:  probably not.  That Daniel J. just won't get to the general election.  But read on. I find it hard to believe that Mary Peltola and Dan Sullivan will not be among the four top candidates in the primary election who would move on to the general election in November.  There are 15 candidates on the ballot as of today.  One more has withdrawn and another, Daniel J,. has a denied marked on his name.  



There's one main Democrat and one main Republican - Peltola and Sen. Sullivan.  The only other name that I recognize is Libertarian Party candidate Scott Kohlhaas.  No, there are two more I recognize - perennial candidate for office Dustin Darden and Carol Hafner, the mother of Eric Hafner, the New York prisoner running, again, for the US House seat.  Yes, his mother is running for the Alaska US Senate seat though she has never been to Alaska and lives in South Dakota.  

In the 2024 US House primary race there were three 'known' candidates:  Mary Peltola, Nick Begich, and Nancy Dahlstrom.  Those three captured 97% of the vote.  In the Alaska open primary, the top four candidates go on to the general election.  The fourth candidate got 0.6% of the votes.  The fifth place candidate was also at 0.6%.  The sixth place candidate, the guy in the New York prison, got 0.4% of the votes.  The third place candidate, Nancy Dahlstrom - now the Lt. Governor and overseer of the elections in 2026 - dropped out.  Purportedly so as to not split the Republican vote in the general.  Though because of ranked choice voting, that shouldn't have been an issue.  So maybe there was another reason.  Then the fourth place candidate dropped out.  So the fifth and sixth place candidates moved onto the general ballot.  

So would Daniel J. on the ballot hurt Daniel S. if he were on the ballot?  The GOP members of the committee were right that there would be confusion.  But as one of the witnesses who testified today, Hollis French, argued - it was up to the Division of Elections to find a way to make distinctions between the two candidates so voters could know which one was the 'real' Daniel Sullivan.  And the 'real' Dan Sullivan's campaign would have to find effective ways to help voters know which Daniel Sullivan was their current US Senator.  

We all recall how Lisa Murkowski, after losing the Republican primary, went on to conduct a successful write-in campaign, which required voters to spell her name right..  Not an easy task.  But she pulled it off.  

At this point, I''d guess that Peltola, Sen. Sullivan, and Kohlhaas would be the top three, scooping up most of the votes.  As I look at the 2024 House race, the others won't get many votes.  Though I suspect Dustin Darden has run often enough that people will vote for him because they recognize his name.  And Daniel J. probably has a good chance to get votes too, for the very reasons the Sen. Sullivan campaign and the Republican Party of Alaska and the National Party want him off the ticket.  It would be between him and Darden for fourth place.  

Given that early polls show Peltola ahead of Sen. Sullivan, having Daniel J. on the November ballot would be a threat to Sen. Sullivan's reelection.  If Daniel J. made it to the general election, and there he pulled 5% of the vote from the Senator, it could easily be enough to give Peltola the victory.  Some might say that Peltola's ahead now, so she'd win either way.  I think that's counting your chicks before the eggs are laid.  

None of this was said out loud at the hearing - at least not where the mics caught it.  

5.  Are there bigger implications?

A.  Precedent to knock candidates off the ballot in Alaska

If this succeeds, and it appears to have an excellent chance [now that the lawsuit has reached the court, I find it likely not to succeed], it would empower the Division of Elections to remove candidates from the ballot they don't like.  As long as they time it so the candidate doesn't have time to get a court ruling before the deadline for printing the ballots, they could get away with it.  

We know the National Republican Party is looking carefully at this race.  It's one that has been labeled as flippable.  We don't know how much communication there has been between the Alaska Republican Party and the National Republican Party.  Or with the Dunleavy administration and the Trump administration.  We do know the governor was in the White House recently and didn't protest when the President insulted Lisa Murkowski.  There are short rumors about Dunleavy running against Murkowski in 2028 on websites such as this one..  

I don't know what goes on behind closed doors, but we should assume that something is happening until we find out for sure.  

Meanwhile, I found one US attempt to get opponents off the ballot.  And we know that Trump admires authoritarian governments, the type that keeps opponents off the ballot.  

How the Head of a Super PAC Tried — and Failed — to Remove Every Opponent From the 

Surprising but True: 5 Countries Where Political Opposition Is Banned

Twenty years of ruthlessness: how Russia has silenced Putin’s opponents

B.  This could be a trial run for the Trump administration to get states to just knock candidates he doesn't like off the ballot.

C.  Candidates running against each other with similar names isn't that unusual.

First, it's not that unusual for competing candidates to have similar names.  

"In 215 contests across 15 states, 438 candidates running for office this year share the same last name. Every single one of these contests is for a local election. Of these contests, all but one are nonpartisan elections. One contest, District 20 of the New York City Council, was a partisan contest where Allen Wang (Conservative Party) and Steven Wang (Patriot Party) shared a last name." (From Ballotpedia)

And in Washington State, we have a story of a Republican recruiting two Bob Fergusons to run against the Democratic candidate for Governor, Bob Ferguson.  But this was a state office, not a federal office, and the state had rules against candidates running to intentionally confuse voters. 

I think this captures the most important ideas that came out of the hearing - spoken, unspoken, and beyond.  The next focus will be on the Superior Court.  

Below is a link to the video of the meeting.  I think my approach here is more useful to readers than trying to outline what all happened in the meeting.  You can watch/listen to the meeting below.



 








And while I was trying to finish this up, I found a Wesley Early Alaska Public Media  article "Petersburg’s Dan Sullivan sues Alaska Division of Elections after being removed from U.S. Senate ballot"  Other than the first sentence which says he filed suit, the article gives no more details on when or where he filed suit.  It is a brief synopsis of today's hearing and I found nothing about Daniel G. suing other than the headline.  

The hearing is scheduled for Thursday morning in Superior Court.  There will be a zoom link.  I'll get the time and courtroom and zoom number tomorrow I hope.  


Related posts:

June 22, 2026 Senator Dan Sullivan Does Not Want To Run Against Dan Sullivan [UPDATE] 

June 23, 2026 The Dan J Sullivan Removal From Ballot Hearing  (You are now reading this one)

June 25, 2026  Daniel J. Appeal Of Division Of Elections Decision Plays Out In Nearly Empty Court Room

June 26, 2026 It's Almost 7pm -I Can't Find The Sullivan Decision - [Update - His Name Goes Back On The Ballot]  

June 28, 2026

Posted by at 11:31 AM 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, February 22, 2026

Why Was Stephen Colbert Told To Pull James Talarico Interview?

Fascist states censor. They want to control what people believe to be true.  

Stephen Colbert interviewed Texas state representative James Talarico, a Democratic candidate for US Senate in Texas.  His opponent in the upcoming primary is Member of Congress Jasmine Crockett.  Both appear to be strong candidates.  Both have Democratic detractors.  Or bots doing it.  I've seen social media posts saying Talarico isn't really a Democrat and will be another Fetterman.  And there are those that say a Black woman can't win in Texas.

But, apparently the White House doesn't want Talarico to be the Democratic candidate.  Watch the Colbert show where Colbert tells us that CBS didn't let him play the Talarico interview, but that you can see it on Youtube.  (By the way, Colbert did interview Jasmine Crockett July 2025.)  (Googling "Colbert interview with Jasmine Crockett July 2025" gave me four pages of links to stories about the Talarico interview!!  I had to work to find the link to the Crockett interview.)


And then watch the interview that was blocked, on Youtube.  




I'm guessing that the Republicans are more concerned that a white guy who's a Christian pastor will be more more competitive against the eventual GOP candidate than a fiery, smart Black woman.  Or they think that it will be easier (and more fun) for them to smear the Black lady than the choir boy.  But there's backlash against Talarico from the left too.

"There's a definite battle waged on behalf of
the old guard "dems" who believe that a safe
white man is always the answer. . ."


I'm not sure they're wrong.  But I'm also not sure they're right.  

We've been told that Texas was going to go blue with Beto O'Rourke and then with Colin Allred , both formidable candidates.  So I'm not counting my Senators before they're elected.  

But Trump's heavy handed misadministration has set up 2026 to be the year of the Democrats. One could well argue that if it doesn't happen this year, it's not going to happen.  But it will eventually, given that the demographic shifts continue.  And that's one reason ICE is trying to deport as many people as possible.  

But non-citizens can't vote and don't vote (no matter how loudly the GOP yell about the need for every voter to prove they are citizens), so at this point they aren't thinning the rolls through deportation.  Though the SAVE Act would have a massive impact on elections.  [The SAVE Act link goes to a post from May last year, and there have been some changes, but you can see this is intended to prevent as many people as possible from voting, particularly those more likely to vote blue, like women.]

From what I've seen, both Talarico and Crockett are formidable candidates.  Will Talarico get more white Christians and maybe get votes from Republicans?  Possibly.  But will a white candidate cause Black voters to skip voting because he beat their bright and most in-your-face Black candidate?  Will Crockett get out the Black vote that other candidates haven't reached?  

Step one is the primary, which has already begun in Texas.  From the Texas Newsroom via the Texas Standard:

"Texas voters can now cast their ballots early for the state’s March 3 party primaries. The results of these elections will determine who represents Republicans and Democrats on the ballot in November.

Despite the important role party primaries play in state politics, Texas has consistently seen low voter turnout for them. Take 2022, during the last midterm election year. During those primaries, only 3 million Texans cast ballots — just 17% percent of the state’s registered voters at the time.

Because relatively few of Texas’ more than 18 million eligible voters show up for these elections, that means those who do vote have an outsize influence on the Lone Star State’s political landscape."


Somewhat relevant to all this is the video below I came across of Texas Rep. Barbara Jordan telling us what impeachment is all about in 1974.  I've been a giant fan of Barbara Jordan since I first came across her about that time.  Just listen to the authority in her voice.  But with no condescension or sarcasm. (or am I missing it?)  If I were doing a movie that had God as a character, her voice would be perfect.  

Posted by at 1:31 PM 1 comments
Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, May 24, 2025

The Save Act Will Essentially Disenfranchise A Lot Of US Voters

 

One reason I haven't blogged as much as usual:  I'm still having problems loading photos from my phone to my laptop.  After I chatted with Apple (allegedly a real person in the Philippines), I got it to work.  But the very next time it didn't again.  Also we were in LA and San Diego for a memorial for a high school friend.  I could have done some quick photo posts, but . . . the airdrop wasn't dropping.  And yes, I could probably load them onto the blog all on the phone, but I haven't tried doing that.  

So Tuesday evening, I brought my Canon camera to the Marston Auditorium to hear about the SAVE Act - presented by the ACLU, the League of Women's Voters, and the Native American Fund.  That camera has an SD card and I have an attachment that lets me plug it into the laptop.


Mara Kimel, from the ACLU introduced the first speaker who had just flown up from LA.  Xavier Presad outlined key problem areas of the Act


What he didn't say, in so many words, but what I took from all the specific issues, was that this is a giant voter suppression act.  Which makes sense coming from this administration and, presumably, the folks at the Heritage Foundation.  They've been worried about the changing US demographics for years. It's why they talk about The Great Replacement Theory. And some folks said 2024 was the last year demographics gave the Republicans a chance to win elections.  Which is why, in part, the president is trying to export a million people.  And import white South Africans.  I'd note that voting by non-citizens is rare, but Republicans seem to want to make people believe it's common, just as they want to make people believe most immigrants are here illegally, are rapits, terrorists, and or murderers.  All to justify flying kidnapped people (citizens and non-citizens) to gulags outside the US.  But this is all my take, not what Xavier said.  


Xavier Presad
Xavier is an ACLU attorney "focused on voting and protecting democracy."  


Key issues Xavier and the other panelists raised:

1.  People required to prove they are US citizens to register to vote, they'll need:
  • birth certificate
  • passport
Voters' ids must have names that are the same as the name on their birth certificates, or be able to prove they officially changed their name.  Anyone who has changed their name - adoptees, married women, for example - will need one of the  IDs above to register to vote.  
While Tribal IDs are listed in the ACT, many, if not most, do not include place of birth and a photo. So they won't be valid. 
Real IDs from many states have the same problem.  

A significant number of USians do not have passports and getting a birth certificate takes several weeks at least and costs $15 on up, depending on which state.  So essentially, anyone trying to prove their nationality will have to get started at least a month before an election or they likely won't get their documentation back on time.  

Another section, they said, makes it possible to remove people from the rolls without notification shortly before the election.  So people will show up to vote, thinking they are registered, and won't have any of the documentation of their citizenship.  And won't be able to vote.   See language from the Act below on acceptable ID.  

The panel after Prasad's talk
2.  Registration has to be done in person.  Everyone has to go to an election office to register to vote.  This ends automatic registration for people who get a driver's license and registering online or having people authorized to register people at events or in front of the supermarket.  For Alaska, it ends automatic voter registration when you apply for a Permanent Fund dividend.  This puts a much bigger burden on election offices and on people who do not live near election offices.  Alaska has only 6 Election Offices - Juneau, Anchorage, Fairbanks, Nome, Wasilla, and Kenai, which is a satellite office of the Wasilla office.  This will make it much harder for rural Alaskans, on or off the road system, to register.  Ir would even act like a poll tax for those who have fly to register.  People in Tok would have to drive to Wasilla or Fairbanks.  And they have to be there during office hours, so it could mean taking off work.  


3.  
Panelist Heather Annett, League of Women Voters
Criminalization of poll workers

People who do not appear on the precinct rolls who say they are registered but do not have proper identification (proving they are US citizens), can be given a provisional ballot to vote.  But the SAVE Act makes it possible to criminally prosecute a poll worker and carries up to five years in prison. 

This seems like it's designed to discourage poll workers from giving provisional ballots.  It also seems to be a way to intimidate potential poll workers.  If you look at the list of acceptable ID's how can an election worker be sure they are authentic, or that the state seal is authentic, or that it was filed with the office responsible to for vital statistics?  Finding enough poll workers is already a problem due, in part, to harassment by GOP voters.

4.  Unfunded Mandate.  The Constitution gives the States some control over elections

Panelist Kristen Gerbatsch,
Native American Rights Fund

Section 4 Congress
Clause 1 Elections Clause
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

Congress has the power to make changes.   

But the bill doesn't authorize any funding for the massive changes states will have to make to the ways they register voters, check for proof of citizenship, and training for staff and poll workers on all the new regulations.  I couldn't find a cost estimate, though I believe one of the speakers did give one. 


Panelist Riza Smith, Action Alaska, Vet
5.  Costs for people (especially rural folks) to register.  This was alluded to in the section 2 - in person registration, but needs to be emphasized for Alaskans, many of whom live off the road system.  They will have to fly or take a ship to get to a location that has an election office.  And while some people may visit one of the six towns with an election office during the year, they have to go to the office during regular working hours.  So weekends are out.  For many this will require taking off work.  If they're, say in Anchorage, for medical care, getting to the election office to register could be a real burden.  A large number of the people living off the road system are Alaska Natives.  For example:

Kayak ad for Anchorage to Dutch Harbor flight
$1408 round trip



The SAVE Act passed the House on April 8, 2025.  It goes next to the Senate.   Conservatives have been eroding Voting Rights for a while.  Shelby County v. Holder began a wholesale attack on voting rights.


Appendix 1:  Acceptable ID
From the SAVE Act as of April 10, 2025 after passage in the House:

(1)

A form of identification issued consistent with the requirements of the REAL ID Act of 2005 that indicates the applicant is a citizen of the United States.

(2)

A valid United States passport.

(3)

The applicant's official United States military identification card, together with a United States military record of service showing that the applicant's place of birth was in the United States.

(4)

A valid government-issued photo identification card issued by a Federal, State or Tribal government showing that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States.

(5)

A valid government-issued photo identification card issued by a Federal, State or Tribal government other than an identification described in paragraphs (1) through (4), but only if presented together with one or more of the following:

(A)

A certified birth certificate issued by a State, a unit of local government in a State, or a Tribal government which—

(i)

was issued by the State, unit of local government, or Tribal government in which the applicant was born;

(ii)

was filed with the office responsible for keeping vital records in the State;

(iii)

includes the full name, date of birth, and place of birth of the applicant;

(iv)

lists the full names of one or both of the parents of the applicant;

(v)

has the signature of an individual who is authorized to sign birth certificates on behalf of the State, unit of local government, or Tribal government in which the applicant was born;

(vi)

includes the date that the certificate was filed with the office responsible for keeping vital records in the State; and

(vii)

has the seal of the State, unit of local government, or Tribal government that issued the birth certificate.

(B)

An extract from a United States hospital Record of Birth created at the time of the applicant's birth which indicates that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States.

(C)

A final adoption decree showing the applicant’s name and that the applicant’s place of birth was in the United States.

(D)

A Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a citizen of the United States or a certification of the applicant’s Report of Birth of a United States citizen issued by the Secretary of State.

(E)

A Naturalization Certificate or Certificate of Citizenship issued by the Secretary of Homeland Security or any other document or method of proof of United States citizenship issued by the Federal government pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act.

(F)

An American Indian Card issued by the Department of Homeland Security with the classification ‘KIC’.


Appendix 2:  State Requirements in the Act

(3)

State requirements  [this is only partial]

Each State shall take affirmative steps on an ongoing basis to ensure that only United States citizens are registered to vote under the provisions of this Act, which shall include the establishment of a program described in paragraph (4) not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this subsection.

(4)

Program described

A State may meet the requirements of paragraph (3) by establishing a program under which the State identifies individuals who are not United States citizens using information supplied by one or more of the following sources:

(A)

The Department of Homeland Security through the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) or otherwise.

(B)

The Social Security Administration through the Social Security Number Verification Service, or otherwise.

(C)

State agencies that supply State identification cards or driver’s licenses where the agency confirms the United States citizenship status of applicants.

(D)

Other sources, including databases, which provide confirmation of United States citizenship status.


I'd note, that the Privacy Act of 1974 requires all agencies that collect personal information from citizens and non-citizens to state on the document how that information will be used.  The agencies are not allowed to share that information with anyone or any agency not listed.  This would be a complete violation of the Privacy Act.  



The Save Act has not been passed by the US Senate. It appears that it will face obstacles in the Senate.  But the more people express their opposition the easier it will be for GOP senators to oppose the bill.  You can contact your US Senators here.






Posted by at 2:50 PM 1 comments
Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, April 01, 2025

Some Of The Best Commentary At The Moment

Time is passing on fast forward.  Today is April Fools Day, 2025, but it's hard to come up with anything crazier than what the US president and his team of thugs do every day.  But a few things that happened on this day:

Cory Booker completed his 24 hour plus speech to Congress.  

Wisconsin voters reelected the left-leaning Susan Crawford  to the Wisconsin Supreme Court with 55% of the vote (with 95% of the votes counted) despite (or maybe because of) Elon Musk's various schemes to shower those who voted for her opponent with millions of dollars.

The GOP retained the two Florida seats, vacated so Matt Gaetz could be nominated (unsuccessfully) for Attorney General, and Michael George Glen Waltz could become the U.S. national security advisor and just last week managed to invite Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg into a Signal chat to plan an attack on the Houthis rebels in Yemen.  These are heavily Republican districts - Waltz got 67% of the vote in 2024 - but his replacement only got 56% of the vote this time.  That's still a decisive margin.  

The first video is an interview with Atlantic editor, Jeffrey Goldberg,  byAnne Applebaum, one of his writers at the New Orleans Book Festival.  Those who are attentive to the news, already know most of the information. 

In the second video, Goldberg is the moderator and asks questions of four of his writers, in conversation with Atlantic staff writers  Anne Applebaum, McKay Coppins, Elaina Plott-Calabro, and Adam Serwer.

This one is bubbling with insights about what is happening in the second Trump administration.  Serwer, especially, boils things down to what seem like accurate takes to me. 

Some of the key points:

  • speed of destruction - in the first administration, Trump had traditional Republicans keeping him from straying too far beyond the normal boundaries.  Not this time.  Those around him believe in their mission to tear down the evil bureaucracy.
  • institutions were slow to accept how much things would change and for the most part hadn't prepared strategies to resist.



I would add that destroying the government in the information age, isn't about destroying buildings, but messing around in the computers - to destroy files, to steal data, to identify 'enemies.'  

If DOGE were blowing up buildings, I suspect Congress would be trying to stop them.  But what they are doing is basically off camera and beyond most people's ability to conceive as 'destroying the United States" as we know it.  People know something bad is happening - particularly when they are directly affected, like when they themselves, or people they know well, lose jobs, their benefits, or people they know get disappeared.  But most of us still haven't felt the real impact yet.  

Posted by at 9:14 PM 0 comments
Labels: , ,

Saturday, March 25, 2023

The Lazy Blogger

 For most of the life of this blog, I posted close to daily.  Within the last six months or so (maybe longer) I've given myself permission to slack off.  Why?  

  • This should be fun, or at the very least satisfying for me.  
  • There's so much crazy out there to write about it's hard to choose how to best spend one's time dealing with it.  
  • When I write about important issues I want to do it right - get most of the key issues and back up what I saw with evidence and that often takes time.  But that means working harder than just popping off with my opinion
  • Much of that crazy is simply intended to confound rational people, because 
    • it isn't intended to make sense, 
    • but to waste rational people's time as they try to 'expose' the lies
  • The key things we need to focus on are:
    • signing up non-voters, people who 
      • have never voted because they aren't interested in politics
      • have never voted because they weren't old enough and may not know how to vote and for some, are leery about doing something they aren't good at
        • for those of us who went along with our parents when they voted, this may seem hard to believe, but lots of people have parents who didn't vote or didn't take them along to familiarize them with the process
      • stopped voting because they think both parties are equally bad
      • don't vote because they think their one vote doesn't make a difference
    • developing scripts with evidence explaining 
      • why voting is important
      • that there is a huge difference between the parties
      • that democracy is threatened if the GOP hold on to the House, regain the Senate, and/or the Presidency
      • how to vote and how to get their non-voting friends to vote too
      • [UPDATED MARCH 27, 2023 - How to distinguish between fact and fiction, human and bot.]
But we can't use ignore ALL the BS flying around.  So I do have some thoughts on the pay raise for the Governor, his commissioners, and the legislature among many other things.  But that's for later posts.  Enjoy the end of the weekend.  Do something you've never done before.  



Posted by at 9:00 AM 4 comments
Labels: , , ,

Friday, November 04, 2022

"The Only Way" To Make Sense Of Sen. Hughes Questionably Logical Pro Constitutional Convention Commentary

I've been resisting writing a post on whether Alaskans should vote to have a constitutional convention.  I listened to a debate between former Assistant Attorney General Libby Bakalar and Senator Shower and resisted.  But today's ADN commentary arguing for a convention was the straw that broke my resistance.  

[For non-Alaskans, our state constitution requires us to vote every ten years on whether to have a constitutional convention.  Since the Constitution was ratified, we've never voted yes.  But this year far right Republicans are pushing this as a way to get rid of the privacy provision which the Supreme Court has used to keep abortion legal in Alaska, and to change the very rational way we select judges among other things.]

So let me talk about a few things. (I could do more, but you'll get the idea fairly quickly.)

1.  The title
COMMENTARY
A constitutional convention is the only way to fix Alaska
Shelley Hughes
That's the headline.  I don't know that Rep. Hughes wrote it or the Anchorage Daily News editors wrote it, so take my comments with that in mind.  

Anyone who starts out saying there is only one way to fix something has already exposed themselves as an uncreative and rigid thinker.  There are always different ways to fix something.  Some very focused mechanical problems - like a backed up toilet - may have relatively few options.  But something as complicated as the whole State of Alaska, certainly has lots of different ways to be "fixed.'   And, note, she doesn't actually tell us what parts are broken and need to be fixed.  A constitutional convention is not the first thing that comes to mind as 'the solution', and probably not to most Alaskans minds. (Though we will learn next week whether this is true or not, at least for Alaskan voters.)


2.  Opening confusion.  She begins by imploring us:
"Alaskans, I respectfully implore you to recognize that the flood of paid advertisements you’ve been hearing about a state constitutional convention may not be telling you the whole story — and dare I say is “spinning” the story to protect the power and wealth of some who believe they would benefit more from your “no” vote."
This is a very confused sentence.   It's doesn't make grammatical sense. And, I'd note, unlimited Outside money is ok when it's oil interest money advertising for a GOP cause, but not when the other side has all that money.  
"the flood of paid advertisements you've been hearing about a state constitutional convention"

Does she mean a "flood of ads we've been hearing about"?   Or is 'about' connected to "a state constitutional convention."  As a blogger who writes a lot, I'm guessing this is the result of editing the original sentence without going back and reading whether it still makes sense.  

She then adds into this convoluted sentence something about spinning the story to protect the power and wealth of people who want you to vote no.  

Well of course, the 'no' side is telling a story to get you to 'vote no' because it's in their interest. 

Just like she's spinning a 'yes' argument to get us to vote yes, because it's in her interest.  

I'd note that Vocabulary.com says 'implore' suggests desperation.

"The word implore is often used to describe an urgent request made out of desperation. A man on death row might implore the governor to grant him a last-minute pardon."

And later in this Commentary she tells us why she's desperate - the No side is outspending the Yes side (her side) 100 to 1.  


3.  36 Questions.  Most of the commentary is made up of 36 questions.  (No I didn't count them, but I used the search function to tell me how many question marks there were.).   These questions, as you might imagine 

  • "may not be telling you the whole story"
  • " are “spinning” the story to protect the power and wealth of some who believe they would benefit more from your “no” ["yes"] vote."

They are all phrased with the very condescending school teacher structure of "Are we...?"  This is how some people talk to children.  Are we hungry today children?  Do we know what day it is today?

Question #1:
"Are we going to realize before we vote that more than 230 state constitutional conventions have been held in our nation successfully, peacefully, without upending state government and industry, without disrupting state economies and without constitutions being thrown out and rewritten, without extreme amendments passing voters?"

Let's briefly look at those '230 state constitutional conventions.'  A Cambridge University Press article published June 2022 tells us there were actually 250:

"From the 1770s through the 1970s, the 50 states held nearly 250 constitutional conventions, many of which brought about important changes in governance.

"Working from this list, I identify 77 of these conventions that were called to create inaugural state constitutions. Another 50 conventions were called for reasons stemming from the Civil War, including conventions called to secede from the Union and make necessary changes in state constitutions, then rejoin the Union and make state constitutional changes required as part of Reconstruction, and then later reverse changes adopted during Reconstruction. Another 41 conventions were called not at the instigation of legislatures but rather through automatically generated conventions or referendums or councils of censors or federal courts."

So the vast majority were:

  • For the state to originally draft their constitutions*
  • To secede from the US during the Civil War and then to rejoin the US after the Civil War make changes during Reconstruction and the reverse those changes.  All, according to Hughes, "without upending state government and industry, without disrupting state economies and without constitutions being thrown out and rewritten, without extreme amendments passing voters."  Really? Not even seceding from the US?  Not even setting up Jim Crow constitutions?  Really?

"Nine states drafted new documents during the turbulent years between 1964 and 1975. Only two states have adopted new constitutions since then: Georgia in 1983, and Rhode Island in 1986.

Alabama is often mentioned when the idea of a constitutional convention comes up. The state’s current document dates to 1901 and at 376,000 words is about 80 times the length of the original U.S. Constitution, making it by far the longest and most amended of state constitutions. Amendments make up about 90 percent of it. Many local government functions are established by the constitution, and it often takes an amendment proposed by the Legislature to make changes to policies affecting a single county, or even a single town." 

So, it isn't a happy story of 230 states willy nilly calling conventions and having kumbaya conventions.  And conventions stopped happening, for the most part, in the 1970s.  And the state that has amended its constitution the most is Alabama.  Now there's a stellar role model for Alaska.  

A related set of questions from Hughes:
"Are we aware that in the more than 230 state conventions that have been held in our nation that Pandora’s box was not opened, that not a single worm escaped a can? That only sane and reasonable amendments were adopted?"
How do 'we' know this?  Just because she says so?  Not a single worm escaped?  How about the Civil War?  Maybe we should look carefully at all the changes to the Alabama constitution.   Actually Former Louisiana state senator Tony Guarisco wrote: 
"The 19th-century racist constitutions of the Bourbons and their 1921"crazy quilt" successor were embarrassments at best. Between 1922 and 1973, a constitutional revision by amendment produced 536 changes to a document that became virtually incomprehensible. Louisiana's law schools expended little or no effort to teach useless or inferior legal authority."
While Guarisco may not be unbiased, he was involved in one the Constitutional rewrites and probably has a better take on this than Sen. Hughes has.

Question 2:  (I'm not going to go through all 36 questions.  Just a few.  So this is the second question from Hughes' list that I'm going to address.)
"Have we processed the fact that the yes side only has donations from individual Alaskans, not the millions from outside ultra-liberal organizations like the opposition? And that the no side is outspending the yes side by 100 to one? That this is a David vs. Goliath battle?"

I haven't checked these facts out, but articles do confirm that the NO campaign is vastly outspending the YES campaign, and that they have a large donation from the same Outside group that supported Ranked Choice elections.  But it ignores the many Alaskan organizations - unions, fisheries groups, Native Groups - that oppose having a convention.

What I want to address here is the David and Goliath comparison.  In the Biblical tale, Goliath was bigger than David.  And Goliath was the bad guy.  David was the good guy.  Well, Senator Hughes here makes the argument that the NO group is bigger (has more money) and then slips in the assumption that the NO group is also the bad guy and that YES group are the good guys.  But she hasn't proved that at all.  Sometimes the stronger guy is also the better guy.  

She reinforces this at the end of the commentary: 

"Much is at stake. Root for David; vote yes."
Question 3:
"Do we realize that the voters elect the delegates by district and therefore the delegates will reflect the values of Alaskans statewide?"

This is actually one of the murkiest parts.  We've just gone through a very contentious redistricting board process.  Exactly how many districts will there be?  Who will set the boundaries for the districts?  The Alaska legislature is elected from districts.  Why would the convention be more harmonious than the legislature (which Hughes implied in previous questions couldn't do the job)?  And why wouldn't the urban centers dominate the rural areas?  [Yes, I just gave you a bunch of questions, but they weren't rhetorical ones like Hughes' questions.  They seek answers.]   I haven't found any documentation on how these delegates would get picked, or even how many there'd be.  The Voter Pamphlet only asks us vote whether to have a convention or not.  It doesn't tell us any more detail than that.  



OK.  That's enough.  You get the picture.  I'll reiterate.  From my perspective the YES folks want to have a convention for two main reasons:
  1. They are frustrated because the Alaska Supreme Court has interpreted the Privacy section of the Alaska Constitution as guaranteeing the right to abortions.  So reason one is to change the Privacy section of the Constitution and they want to add language to prohibit abortions.  
  2. They want to change the very rational way the Constitution sets up for picking judges so the conservatives  have more political control of the judges.  
And there are other things they would change if they had the chance, but I think these are the two most critical ones.

If you haven't already voted, be sure to vote No on Proposition 1 that calls for a constitutional convention.  

*I'm not sure either why 50 states would have 77 constitutional conventions to draft their original constitutions.  Perhaps some were rejected the first time round and they had to start again.  And territories, like Puerto Rico, have drafted constitutions but haven't been accepted as states yet.  (Alaska and Hawaii had their conventions prior to becoming states.)
Posted by at 8:45 PM 0 comments
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)