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 to my laptop.  After I chatted with an 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."  

You can view the SAVE Act here.

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

"Article I  Legislative Branch

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.

The Rest Of The May Day Anchorage Protest Photos

I  got help from Apple today to fix my problem with AirDropping the pictures on my phone to my laptop.  We did it through Chat.  They denied being AI and wrote they were in the Philippines.  The fix was to go into my phone settings, down to 'transfer or reset phone' and then 'reset'.  I was nervous that I'd lose a bunch of things, but so far it seems ok.  And when I tried to upload the photos it worked.  

So here are more of the photos from the May 1 protest in Anchorage.  The original post is here.

Sinners And The Laundromat - From Vampires To Blood Suckers; Plus Lisa Explains Her Fears

[Guide to this post:  This post reminds me of the rambling posts I used to do regularly.  And it feels good, because the world is tangled up in complicated ways - there are few straight lines.  This began as a post about the movie Sinners. But immediately got hijacked by some observations about movie theaters these days. There's a nod to Clarksdale, Mississippi.  But then I switch quickly to what I think is a much more important movie - The Laundromat. But that too gets delayed as I talk about Lisa Murkowski's appearance today on Talk of Alaska and her interpretation of her recent "We're all afraid" comment.  Which requires some background into what ecumenical means.  

If you only want to read one part of this post, I recommend learning about The Laundromat. It's still available on Netflix if you have that.  Skip down to that heading - bold and in capitals.  Then skip past the part on Murkowski to learn about why I think the film is important.]

We haven't been out to see a movie very often lately.  A couple of times while we were in Bainbridge - A Complete Unknown and The Brutalist.  Two movies worth seeing.  

I'd been hearing about Sinners on Spoutible and BlueSky.  Not a lot, but that it was a sleeper big hit, it was a Black themed film.  The parts that had me a bit skeptical mentioned horror elements.  

Well Monday night is a discount night, as two seniors, we got in for a total of $14!!  The tariffs haven't hit Anchorage theaters yet.  But our choice of seats was front row or two separate single seats further back.  We chose the later.  Inside, it was actually pretty empty and we took one of our seats and I sat in the one next to it, my actual seat in the row ahead.  

It did fill up a bit more, but no one claimed my seat.  

When I say it was full, I probably have to remind folks that the theaters have all been remodeled.  There are far fewer total seats, and the ones you get are lounge seats where the head tilts back and the feet up.  So a full theater has a lot fewer viewers than in the past.  

Later:  I didn't finish this.  Sinners is a forgettable movie.  Except for the music.  I don't know what the creators were thinking.  We'll do some Black history, but that doesn't sell enough (a dubious premise) so we'll add some great blues music, and to catch today's audience, we'll add in a vampire massacre.  And we'll locate it in Clarksdale, Mississippi - the Birthplace of the Blues.  (We actually visited Clarksdale and the Blues Museum.  Visiting Mississippi was sort of like visiting Albania or North Korea in my mind - a place forbidden and evil.  It wasn't our destination, but it was between Chicago and New Orleans by car.  But that's a story for another day.) 

This feels like one of my old blogposts, that wandered and jumped, as life does and as thoughts do.  So let's jump back into the present future.  

Why do people say the Democratic party is not really any different from the Republican party?  Because deep down, they are both corrupted by money and protection of the wealthy.  The Republicans are a lot more open about that.  They think rich people are the product of hard work and deserve all they get.  

The Democrats are a little embarrassed by their dependence on the rich.  They cover this addiction (well it's almost required if you want to have enough money to campaign, thanks to Citizens United) by trying to make the lives of those screwed over by the system a little more bearable.  They try to spread a bit of equality to more people, but their hands are just as dirty with money, and they go to parties with lots of people whose wealth comes from less than pristine morals and behavior.  

NO, NO, NO, I'm not saying they are the parties are the same, or that life under a Harris administration would have been no different from the disaster of the current Republican Administration.  [Someone suggested online today, not to mention his name, but to say Republican Administration instead to make sure all the cowards in the House and Senate are fully implicated in what's going on.  After all, they could end this non-violent coups if they chose to.  What do you think?)

THE LAUNDROMAT

So, tonight after falling asleep listening to Lisa Murkowski on Talk of Alaska, in what seemed an attempt to clean up her confession to being afraid, that 'We are all afraid' by saying, "It was kind of an ecumenical 'we' . . . When I say Lisa Murkowski is afraid, it's not in a cowardly way."  She's not, afraid of things like being primaried, she said. She's hearing from Alaskans who are losing their jobs, from Alaskans whose grant monies and contracts have been halted.  "So when I say 'we' I have to include myself as an Alaskan.  She also spoke of her oath to uphold the Constitution and her responsibilities  under Article 1.  "I'm seeing an erosion of the boundaries, if you will, between the Executive and the Legislative branch..."  As I say I fell asleep during this and I'm resurrecting her words through the podcast up at Talk of Alaska. (The comments I'm referring to start around 6 minutes in.)  And if you are a little confused by her reference to the 'ecumenical we' as I was, here's a little refresher.  Maybe she didn't want to say the 'royal we' and 'ecumenical' was the only other 'we' she could think of.  Maybe she thought it would imply some sort of bi-partisan message.  Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, atheists and agnostics, not included I guess.  

"The Ecumenical Movement is a key effort in the Christian faith. It works to bring different Christian groups around the world together. Its importance is seen in religious fellowship and the chase of shared goals. The word ‘ecumenical’ comes from ‘oikoumen?,’ the Greek word for “the inhabited world.” Over time, it has gained a special theological meaning. The word’s evolution shows a move from ordinary to sacred, going from a word about geography to a sign of hope to unite Christians.

"The Ecumenical Movement started as an answer to the need for unity in the Christian church. The church was split by arguments over belief and competitive missions. Through history, ecumenical councils played key roles. They helped form the faith’s theology and practices. This includes councils from the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. These meetings show the ongoing effort to find what the Ecumenical Movement is today. This effort is helped by groups like the World Council of Churches and places like Taizé that focus on community spirituality." (From Faithonview.com)

 But all th's Murkowski stuff slipped in because I got a bit of a nap this evening so I felt like I could partake in a bit of Netflix and while randomly exploring, found a movie called The Laundromat.  It turns out I saw this already on Netflix.  

It's an important film for USians to watch to understand why some people say there is no difference between the two political parties.  The very rich invite politicians of both parties to their parties, and most politicians accept the invitations.  (OK, I'm just saying that.  I don't have statistics.  But I'm pretty sure it's true in a general sort of way.)

It's not your run of the mill movie.  It's a semi-fictional account of a woman whose husband dies in a freak boating accident and she learns that the boating company's insurance isn't going to pay.  She is told about shell companies and holding companies and off shore accounts.  We also meet a couple of wealthy men, business partners,  Jürgen Mossack and Ramón Fonseca who tell us their side of the story.  

Mossack and Fonseca.  Is that ringing any bells?  Remember the Panama Papers?  When a law firm in Panama got hacked and all their clients and shell companies got exposed?  That was Mossack and Fonseca.  

It's essentially a movie that attempts to tell us in a down-to-earth way about how the world is rigged against most people by the very wealthy.  Generally we just hear stuff that says we're screwed.  

" 735 U.S. billionaires hold more wealth ($0.4 trillion more) than the bottom 50% of American households."  (I picked this claim because this is from Snopes checking out a statement by Robert Reich, so it was fact checked somewhat.)

The movie tells us a little bit more about how it happens.  

Wikipedia says the movie got mixed reviews.  But I'm guessing because it's imaginative, clever, and takes a very dry and difficult subject and makes it relatable to the average person. And the only vampires are allegorical blood suckers.  

Steven Soderbergh (a very inventive filmmaker) directed it and it stars Meryl Streep as an ordinary USian who wants to know who is screwing her over.  Gary Oldman and Antonio Banderas play the two Panama lawyers who got hacked.  

As Trump is leaning on Congress to pass a huge tax cut for the very rich, this film does give us a glimpse of how slimy it all is.   

>

How Does Trump Screw Us? Let Me Count The Ways

That wasn't the original title, but as I started writing, it just seemed more apt.  

This post is about two videos - one by Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut who lays out the details of the unprecedented level of corruption in the first six weeks of the Trump administration.    (Thus the title of this post.)  

The second is a woman from Oklahoma venting her anger over the botched Signal chat that put her husband (stationed in the Middle East) in potential danger.  

I was struck by the contrast between these two approaches to criticizing the Trump administration - one highly factual and rational, almost like a college lecture.  The other focused, but almost unhinged in the level of anger and invective.  

I'd argue that we should all be at the level of anger and resistance that woman is at.  We shouldn't wait until we are directly impacted.  100,000 people raging like she does would probably pry enough US Senators away from Trump to stop the venal actions that Senator Murphy describes in detail.  

We need the facts and details to understand how we're being screwed to raise our level of anger and resistance.  And we need her passion and fury to get us to stop pretending life will not be completely disrupted if we don't stop this horror right now.  

Murphy Video

There's a lot of content and detail here.  You can skip down to the video, or you can first look at my outline of the ways Murphy lists that Trump is corrupting government and enriching himself and his oligarch supporters - from streamlining the art of the bribe to dismantling agencies that have investigations that hurt Trump supporters.  Here are some of them, to help you keep track.  I've added links if you want to find out more about each.  

1.  Memecoins - He starts out talking about Trump meme coins that can be used to transfer money, unreported, directly into Trump's account.  This is the latest in bribe technology. 

What are Meme Coins?

I had to look up meme coins to try to understand what they are.  Here's a link to investopedia.com and one to wikipedia to help you understand.  The first link even offers ways to invest.  The Wikipedia link is more contextual and historical.  One thing I learned looking this up is that DOGE - the Department Of Government Efficiency - the rogue mob that Elon Musk is leading, is also the name of one of the more popular memecoins, one that Musk promoted.

2. Pays off Oil/Gas Industry's $1 billion bribe.   On day one Trump privileges oil and gas and hurts their competition- wind, solar etc.  This article documents the billion dollar ask, but the actual money count doesn't get that high.  But the benefits were given.  

3.  Jan 25  Fires the watch dogs - all the Inspectors General - the people who investigate corruption

4.  Jan 27 - Fires head of National Labor Relations Board.  This means NLRB cannot investigate cases.  Musk has lots of cases before the NLRB.  And many others around Trump have cases pending.

5.  Jan 30 - awards $800K stock of Trump Media platform  to  cabinet members, which Murphy says is another way for people to move cash to bank accounts of cabinet members in order to get favors.  

6.  Feb 23 - Weaponization of DOJ  - Drops case against Musk SpaceX    Then drops case against a GOP congressman.  Then Operation Whirlwind that targets anyone critical of Musk or DOGE.   DOJ turned into entity that drops cases of Trump loyalists and attacks those who criticize Trump.

7.  Feb 1  - Shut down Consumer Finance Protection Board  which was investigating Musk and Trump backers - consumer protection actions now gone

8.  Feb 4.  Meetings in White House with Business Partners - Saudi Gulf League and PGA - Saudis play torunaments at Trump golf course 

9.  Feb 6 - Pam Bondi - dulls foreign government agent act - No longer registering as foreign government represenatives  = now his friends can lobby government while secretly getting paid by foreign governments.  

10.  Feb 10 - Eric Adams case dropped and publicly announced that gettting rid of the charges against Adams if he pledges loyalty to Trump.Six  people in DOJ refused and resigned and finally the seventh agreed.  

11.  Buying $400 million Tesla’s.  Biden admin was going to buy $483K, Trump bumps it up to $400 million.  This seems to have been scuttled.

This is only a partial list.  The rest are in the video.  

 The Murphy Video

p> 

The second video is just sheer anger at Trump's inept appointees jeopardizing the life of the lady's husband as well as of those of his fellow Middle East stationed military men.  [This is supposed to end after about 4 minutes 30 seconds - I added instructions into the code.  But it didn't work.  I'm not recommending you watch the whole thing.]

The original video I saw, but couldn't find a way to embed, was sharply directed to Sen. Lankford of Oklahoma.  She vows to end his career.  Very powerful messaging.  You can see it at this link to a Bluesky post.

As I said above, we should all be at the level of anger and resistance that woman is at.  We shouldn't wait until we are directly impacted.  Murphy offers us just a few of the reasons we should be angry as hell.   100,000 people raging like the woman in the video does would probably cause enough GOP Senators and Members of Congress away from Trump to stop the horrors that Senator Murphy describes in detail.  

How Do I Love Thee? (Sonnet 43)

Elizabeth Barrett Browning 1806 – 1861

How do I love thee? Let me count the ways.

I love thee to the depth and breadth and height

My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight

For the ends of being and ideal grace.

I love thee to the level of every day’s

Most quiet need, by sun and candle-light.

I love thee freely, as men strive for right.

I love thee purely, as they turn from praise.

I love thee with the passion put to use

In my old griefs, and with my childhood’s faith.

I love thee with a love I seemed to lose

With my lost saints. I love thee with the breath,

Smiles, tears, of all my life; and, if God choose,

I shall but love thee better after death.

This poem is in the public domain.

Civil Service - Who Are These People ET Are Firing? - Part I

Intro:  Civil Service and Merit System are terms most Americans have heard, but I'd guess that few could tell you, very accurately, what they mean or anything about their history or why they are important bedrocks of American democracy.  

Part I - is a repeat of a post I put up last August 31, 2025.  Part II will be another old post.  It gets into more detail and is based on testimony I gave in a discrimination case years ago.  Although there will be repetition, I'm sure that will be helpful for readers to grasp the concepts. 

This topic is critical to understanding why what is happening right now is both illegal and will lead to serious damage to the U.S. government's ability to efficiently and effectively serve the people of the United States.  

*ET - my conflation of Elon and Trump, though someone else thought it meant Evil Tyrant.  Evil Twins might also work.  Maybe Elon and Trump can journey to Mars and it can then have its original meaning of Extra Terrestrial.  

From the August 31, 2024 post:

From the August 31, 2024 LA Times: [Note the digital and facsimile editions have different titles.]

 

As someone who taught public administration at the graduate level, I'm well aware of the lack of knowledge of what 'the civil service' is.  So let me give you some background.  

Before the civil service was created in local, state, and federal governments, we had what is often called "the spoils system."

Briefly, 'to the victor, go the spoils.'  Winning candidates gave jobs to the campaign supporters.  This was the payoff for working on a campaign.  Qualifications were not nearly as important as loyalty.  This included positions as low as garbage collector and as high as the head of the budget.  

Aside from the incompetence and corruption this led to, it also meant that whenever someone from a different party won, the whole government was thrown out and new people were put in place.  And had to learn from scratch, generally without any help from the fired former workers.

Political machines, like Tammany Hall in New York, would recruit new immigrants coming off the ships to work on their campaigns with the promise of a job if they won.  [US citizenship was not required to vote back then.  That changed later.  The Constitution gave the states the power to run elections and decide qualifications to vote.  The Constitution didn't ban women from voting, the states did.]

At the national level, this came to a head when Andrew Jackson was elected president and invited 'the riffraff' that elected him to the White House in 1830.  But it wasn't until a disgruntled office seeker assassinated President Garfield in 1881 because he didn't get the position he sought, that Congress got serious. 

In 1883 they passed the Pendleton Act that set up a civil service system based on merit.  

Merit, as in the 'merit system' means that positions are filled based on merit, or on one's qualifications for the job, not on who you know.  

Local governments in New York and Boston didn't move to merit systems until the early 20th Century.  

Those merit systems weren't perfect.  The inherent biases of the day meant that women and Blacks weren't qualified except for what Trump would call 'women's jobs' and 'Black jobs.'  

And even today, the top level jobs in most governments are still filled with people who are loyal to the head of the government - whether that's a mayor, governor, or president.   Not only does that include cabinet officials but a top layer of 'exempt' positions.  Exempt meaning they are not covered by the merit system.  They can be hired and fired at will.  Usually the newly elected official picks people based on their loyalty to the policy as well as their professional qualifications to do the job.  But clearly that second part doesn't always happen.  The only check on this, is a required vote of approval by a legislative body - the US or state Senate, a City Council.  But if the newly elected executive  has a majority in the legislative branch too, that approval is often pro forma.

People hired through a merit system process also have job protections.  They cannot be fired except for cause - for violating the law, the policies or procedures, for gross incompetence etc.  Whereas the appointed (exempt) positions don't have such protections.  

After his 2016 election, Trump was frequently frustrated by career civil servants, who didn't jump to follow his often illegal instructions. The media have dubbed these people (who included many appointed positions as well) 'the guardrails' that kept Trump somewhat in line. He wanted the Justice Department to punish people who opposed him.  He did battle with the civil servants in various regulatory agencies who followed the law rather than Trump's illegal bidding.  

So, when we hear that Trump wants to destroy the civil service, as stated in the LA Times headline above, this is what we're talking about.  

He doesn't want a system that hires qualified people who cannot be fired except for cause.  (Again, for cause, means they have to do something that violates the laws, the rules, or is grossly incompetent or corrupt.)  He wants government workers that do his bidding without any resistance, without them telling him 'it's against the law.'

He wants to fire all those people who were hired based on merit (their qualifications to perform the job).  These include Democrats, Republicans, and non-partisan employees.  He wants to replace them with people whose main qualification is undying loyalty to Trump.  

That's pretty much all I want to say.

One of the very best books on this subject is Robert Caro's The Power Broker.  It's a biography of Robert Moses who played a major role in getting a merit system in place in New York.  It's a massive [1168 pages] book.  But it is also riveting as it goes into detail on how the young, idealist Moses evolved into the powerful and corrupt power broker of New York. And in doing so tells the story of the civil service. Not only did the book win the Pulitzer Prize, it was also selected on most lists of the 100 best non-fiction books of the 20th Century. I challenge you to read the first hundred pages and not want to keep turning the pages.

Introduction to Robert Caro's The Power Broker 

Part II is here.

Fictional Cabinet Nominees Seem Appropriate For Trump's Fictional World

Since President Elect Trump tells more lies than truths, it seems appropriate for him to have fictional cabinet members to match the fictional world he lives in.  He's already extolled Hannibal Lector as though he was a real person.  Which got me thinking about a where Hannibal would fit in the cabinet.  And then what a whole cabinet of fictional characters might look like.  

Such a cabinet would have benefits - though I'm still trying to figure out who will benefit most.  Probably Trump, but perhaps the rest of us will too.

• These nominees won't testify in the Senate saving Trump the embarrassment of scorching questioning of his picks and saving the upper house many, many hours and saving GOP Senators the embarrassment of debasing themselves and their honor to defend Trump's picks
• Though it's possible that before long they can be recreated virtually to testify
• The nominees don't have actual records that can be dug up by journalists trying to uncover their past misbehaviors 
• Though perhaps scholars of literature and film will be called upon to write opinion pieces about them.  
• Trump can probably have them serve without getting approval of the Senate at all.  
• And none of these appointees will take actions to block Trump's will, nor will they take action to forward it.  

This is merely a list I came up with.  My grandkids helped with a few of the nominees.  A couple of friends made excellent suggestions too.  But if readers feel they have better nominees, or alternatives if any of these can't or won't serve, be sure to let me know.  

Some of these nominees, most everyone should know, or at least have heard the name.  Others are a bit more obscure.  But they all can be easily googled.  There is one that has an asterisk because more than one person bears that name.  But I'll remind you it's a fictional character and there is only one that I know of that clearly first the position.  

I would also remind readers that this blog is called "What Do I know?" and a key theme is how we know what's real and what's true.  Many people, myself included, have said that Trump's followers live in a fictional world.  We point at evidence such as climate change, and scientific research on a variety of other subjects from medicine to crime, demographics, and paleontology, to name just a few. 

But within a society, truth, ultimately, is what the vast majority of the population believes it to be. And sometimes there's a gap between the truth that people profess and the truth their eyes (and other senses) tell them.  Hans Christian Anderson's story The Emperor's New Clothes gives us that example.  

Different religions believe their holy books describe truth.  Truths which are not compatible with the truths of the holy books of other religions.  Yet hundreds of millions of people believe without a doubt the different truths of the different major holy books in the world.  

So by electing Trump, many USians have created a reality that we will all have to endure.  It's a reality in which Donald Trump is president.  A man who, in his first presidency build pieces of 'wall' along parts of the US border with Mexico, which the Mexican government didn't pay for.  

There were also over a million US residents who died of COVID, many of whom would have lived if Trump had lived in a different mental world.  And more people will die in Trump's second presidency because that's how his world thinks it should be, or because the laws of science in my world, won't bend to his will.  

A Fork In The Road Of US And World History

This is one of those historic moments when the world will pull back from the bring of disaster or go crashing into a new world of callous destruction.  The US AID (Agency for International Development) [poster] from Thailand in the late 1960s isn't too dramatic for the choice we face right now.  On the left side it says "Communism,"  in the middle it says "or" and on the right side it says "Freedom." Our choice now is Authoritarian vs. Democracy.  

Despite its many flaws, the US Democracy has been one of the better examples of how humans can work together to build a society based on law and aspirations of peace, of freedom, and of comfort.  The reality has favored some more than others - in terms of freedom, justice, and economic and social security.  And it has had serious negative impacts on the environment.  

But we're at a critical fork in the road.  To the right, we crash into the despotic world ruled by Trump and those who pull his strings, like Putin and his meddling into our election as he has meddled in the Brexit vote, Hungary, France, Italy, and, of course, Ukraine.  He's a force of evil turning the world toward chaos that he thinks he can better thrive in.  

If we go the Trump route, it's not Trump so much I'm worried about.  But it's his backers - from Putin, to the Christian Nationalist mob, and the wealthy cabal on the far right who have been plotting for decades and have already successfully captured the Supreme Court.  

The left fork would give us the first woman president, who is also part East Indian and part Black.  And she's incredibly capable as her career and short campaign has demonstrated.  

There should not even be any doubt that Kamala Harris should win this election.  That there is reflects serious failures in our system.  Failures in the education system that has produced tens of millions of voters who would choose a candidate with hundreds of flaws and misbehaviors any one of which would have destroyed any other presidential candidate.  

Failures in our system that have allowed foreign propaganda to be broadcast through outlets like Fox News and all sorts of internet sites to sow seeds of distrust in our system and in the idea of Truth itself.

Failures in our justice system that allow a convicted felon, who is ineligible to vote in most states, to be a candidate for the presidency.  Who would be ineligible to join our military to be its Commander in Chief.  

Fairlure in our electoral system that disregards the popular vote for an arcane system that focuses all the attention on seven purple states.  

A Harris administration will face many serious problems (including the disgruntled cult members), but it would work on them rationally and in good faith.   And that a Trump administration would exacerbate.  

Often such turning points aren't realized until after they happen - Pearl Harbor, 9/11, the election of FDR, for example.  

But we know today.  We've known a long time that this election is a choice between two very different futures.  One continues to move us toward greater equality, and one hopes, more equal economic prosperity, and continued fights to minimize CO2 emissions and the worst ravages of climate change.  

The other unleashes nasty brutish anger and hate on our country and the world.  

And even if Harris wins the election decisively, we know the depraved one will fight to overturn the election.  

Fortunately, this time round we know his past behaviors and are better prepared.  The public is more aware because, except for his cult members, we've seen how he operated after the last election.  Our government is better prepared for the same reason.  And more importantly, Joe Biden is still president and in control of the military and the national guard and other resources that might be needed.  

My logical brain tells me that it will be a Harris victory.  Reason says that the world has changed in ways that disfavor Trump.

Clinton beat Trump by nearly 3 million votes.   

Biden beat Trump by over 7 million votes.  

Since the 2020 election, we've learned so much more about Trump's evil ways.

He was impeached for the second time.

He created a plot to challenge Biden's victory

He instigated the January 6 insurrection of the Capitol

He stole boxes and boxes full of classified documents and stored some of them in a bathroom in Mar-A-Lago. And shared them, well, we don't know for sure with whom.

He's become a convicted felon and rapist.

He has several serious indictments and trials still waiting for him

The Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade

His public appearances have shown him to be more and more deranged

He's presided over a Nazi rally in New York City

Many of the 'very fine people' he selected to serve in his administration have publicly warned us what a disastrous president he was.  

I can go on and on, but the point is that we know so many more terrible things about him.  Even if his cult stays loyal, there have to be other Republicans and Independents who voted for him last time who either won't vote for Trump, and many who will vote for Harris.  And young people who now are eligible to vote, but weren't four years ago.

We know that the Dobbs decision has galvanized women, especially in light of the Republican states who have passed draconian anti-abortion laws that are killing women who have had miscarriages and other problems with pregnancy.  And we're hearing about many women forced to give birth to their rapists' children.  

Conservative states like Kansas and Ohio have put the right to abortions in their constitutions through ballot measures, by-passing their legislatures.  

The numbers of early voters shows Democrats returning their ballots more than Republicans, shows women outvoting men, shows young voters voting at higher than past levels.  So everything points to a Harris victory.  

But nothing is certain until the votes are counted and whatever gimmicks Trump pulls if he loses are blocked.  

This is one of those huge moments in history where human destiny hangs in the balance.  

[Soon after I arrived in Thailand in 1967 as Peace Corps teacher in rural Thailand, I was taken out one night to a village by an AID employee.  A village not unlike the one on the right of the poster.  He hung a sheet up across the road and showed movies about the danger of communism.  I suspect, in hindsight, I was being tested and I failed dismally - to my credit, I'd like to think.  AID (CIA?) never approached me again, to my knowledge.  But I did end up with this poster.]

Why LATimes and Washington Post Presidential Non-Endorsements Are So Problematic

The previous post concerned how the billionaire owners of the LA Times and Washington Post blocked their editorial boards from endorsing Kamala Harris for president and why I cancelled my subscription to the LA Times. [I don't have a subscription to the Washington Post.] 

We know that Jeff Bezos has other business deals with the US government [sorry, there's a paywall] - with Amazon and with other ventures - that a Trump presidency would, in Bezos' mind - be quashed.  And he may be right.  Patrick Soon-Shiong also has other businesses that possibly could be jeopardized by a Trump presidency.  Plus Trump has said that he would punish media and others who oppose him.  

I focused on what appears to be their fear that if Trump were elected, they would be punished for such an endorsement.  I compared that behavior to the behavior of the Washington Post and NYTimes when they published the Pentagon Papers in 1971 - a daring display of courage and the power of press.  

I spent more time on the Pentagon Papers than I intended to, because I realized that while I was a young adult at the time, anyone under 53 today, hadn't even been born yet.  If 'Pentagon Papers' means anything to most of them, it probably is pretty superficial.  

Think what people born after next year will know and understand about the 2024 election in 2077!  The historic lessons get lost if we don't keep them alive.  

So I decided to postpone the second part of that post to another post.  

Here's the part I left for a future post - putting their actions into context using Vaclav Havel's "The Power of the Powerless."  You can see the whole essay at the link.  Or a much briefer overview at Wikipedia.

It's a long essay, written by then Czech playwright, and later, president, about how people in an authoritarian regime could still maintain their freedom.  He's specifically talking about the Soviet form of dictatorship that ruled Czechoslovakia at that time.  There are many people with greater expertise on Havel's work than I.  But this is my limited take on this situation.  

When I heard about the two billionaire owners of two major newspapers killing editorials that would have endorsed Kamala Harris for president, the part I thought of was the story of the greengrocer putting up signs in his shop window.   You can read it below.  I've highlighted some of it in red.  

"III 

"The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

"I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life "in harmony with society," as they say.

"Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer's superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan's real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer's existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

"Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, "What's wrong with the workers of the world uniting?" Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.

"Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves. It is a very pragmatic but, at the same time, an apparently dignified way of legitimizing what is above, below, and on either side. It is directed toward people and toward God. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and their adaptation to the status quo. It is an excuse that everyone can use, from the greengrocer, who conceals his fear of losing his job behind an alleged interest in the unification of the workers of the world, to the highest functionary, whose interest in staying in power can be cloaked in phrases about service to the working class. The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe."

The situation of the greengrocer under Soviet authoritarianism and the Bezos and Soon-Shiong is not a perfect analogy, but it shows how the no-holds-barred style of Trump causes even billionaires to modify their behavior rather than draw unwanted attention to themselves.

The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message

In the case of both newspaper owners, not publishing an endorsement of Harris was a sign to Trump with a clear message that they didn't want him upset at them if he were elected.  They didn't want their companies punished for supporting Harris.

the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. 

Not endorsing Harris was the equivalent of putting the a sign in the window that says, 'we will not oppose you' to Trump.  The low foundation of their obedience. We do not want you to punish us in some way.  And the low foundation of Trump's power is that the endorsements were perfectly legal and normal, yet they were afraid to publish the endorsements.  

The 'ideology' they were hiding behind was the idea that newspapers should  maintain "political neutrality," should be objective observers that don't take sides, but impartially report the news.  Of course, impartiality is not possible.  A news outlet can try to report objective facts, but the employees and owners all have values that color what events are reported and how they are reported.  Or, in this case, not reported.  

And the idea that newspapers must be objective observers and non-partisan is one that many hold, but it is not historically the only norm.  

Early Colonial newspapers were often "a sideline for printers."  Benjamin Franklin was such a printer with a newspaper on the side.  And they were quite partisan.  During that era John Peter Zenger was found innocent when a governor tried to shut down his partisan attacks.  Do kids still learn about Zenger in school these days?

The fact that Trump has threatened to attack the media as president and more recently to talk about his political enemies being executed - as he let the January 6 mob erect a gallows for his then Vice President - is all the more reason that they should have endorsed his opponent.  

Another issue this raises is the phenomenon of billionaires buying existing newspapers.  On the one hand, this is a way for some newspapers to survive.  And it's probably better than newspapers being owned by corporations that own many newspapers and thus limit the number of different voices available to the public.  I say newspapers here, but this also applies to radio and television.  

And yet, at the same time, the internet has provided access to way more voices than ever.  Perhaps we're just waiting for the dust to settle.  Or the Musks of the world are going to buy up those voices.  It's a time of change and we have to just hold on until it becomes more settled.  

But the problem of billionaires owning papers is that they have large financial interests that can easily come into conflict with the objectivity of the paper they own.  In Bezos' case, Amazon has interest in large government contracts which some have suggested as a reason he vetoed the endorsement.  

The key point in all this for me, the reason I thought it important enough to cancel my LA Times subscription, is the issue Havel raises about having personal freedom, no matter how small, and to use it.  

Authoritarians have control because people voluntarily obey them.  Even when there is no law and no order, people anticipate what the regime wants them to do, and do it.  People cede their autonomy voluntarily.  As did the two owners of the newspapers.  And as the many Republican politicians who trashed Trump during the 2016 primaries - Cruz, Graham, Rubio, etc. - but then fell in line to support him.  Trump is ruthless, but Stormy Daniels and E. Jean Carroll stood up to him and won.  

If Trump wins Tuesday, and we get conflicting reports on how close it is, we will all be facing life in an authoritarian state.  Understanding Havel will be important.  

Cancelling My LA Times Subscription [Updated]

[UPDATES:  Here's the link to the second post on this topic. The Nov 3 UPDATE is at the bottom of the original article]

Overview:  I'm giving context to why I cancelled my subscription.  I look back to heroic actions taken by the  New York Times and the Washington Post during the Vietnam war to compare to what appears to be the cowardly action of the Post and the LA Times owners today.  

I'd note that while other papers have discussed the LA Times' decision, the LA Times as so far not had any article about this issue. 

So we start with the Pentagon Papers story.  Then we go to the vetoing of editorials supporting Kamala Harris for president by the owners of the two newspapers this week.  

Then I mention an important article by Vaclav Havel that directly addresses what happens when owners of businesses voluntarily comply to pressure from authoritarian governments.  But I'll save that discussion for the next post.  

 In 1971, The New York Times and the Washington Post were given copies of "The Pentagon Papers."  This was a classified report on the Vietnam War.  .  

One of the researchers, Daniel Ellsberg, was disturbed that the research showed that the US government was lying to the people of the United States about major aspects of the Vietnam war.  

Student protests had been going on constantly.  In spring of 1970, four students at Kent State were shot dead by National Guardsman called to quell the protests on campus.  This led to huge protests all over US campuses.  

While I was a young adult during the times of the Pentagon papers and it is all still vivid in my mind, I'm writing all this because I realize that every US citizen under the age of 53, was not even born then.  Even though they may have heard about the Pentagon Papers, most are probably have a very fuzzy understanding of the significance.  I know that was my experience of current events that took place in recent history but before I was born. I'm just summarizing some highlights.  You can read more at Wikipedia.  Their article starts with the contents of the Papers.  You have to scroll down to learn about the politics of publishing them in the newspapers.  

Ellsberg copied the Pentagon Papers.  In those days you generally had to copy page by page.  He took them to Kissinger (who he knew) and to  key Members of Congress, but didn't get the support he needed.  Then he went to the New York Times and shared them.  The Times began publishing excerpts on June 13.

The Nixon Administration tried to stop the publication by the Times with an injunction.  The Washington Post then began to publish the documents.  Also, Alaska US Senator Mike Gravel placed the full Pentagon Papers into the public record.

The Supreme Court decided 6-3 that

"Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell.

— Justice Black[56]"  [Wikipedia]

Unfortunately the court's decision doesn't appear to be a compelling value to the owners who quashed the endorsements in their papers.  

[Another interesting comparison to today: the Times published the first piece on June 13.  The US Supreme Court announced its decision on June 30!]

Ellsberg was personally charged but was not found guilty.  

I offer you this because this week the owners of both the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post overruled their editorial boards' decisions to endorse Kamala Harris for president.  There have been resignations by editors of both papers over this.  

We can speculate why the owners took these actions.

The MSNBC headline was:

"The Billionaire Owners of the Washington Post and LA Times Just Capitulated to Trump"

NPR's headline didn't attribute a motive to the Washington Post's decision, 

"Washington Post' won't endorse in White House race for first time since 1980s"

but quoted former Washington Post former Executive Editor Martin Baron:  

"This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."

This is, of course, why I have included the story of the Pentagon Papers.  This is a far different action this week by  the owner of the Washington Post than we saw from Katherine Graham, the owner of the Post in 1971.  

Jeff Bezos, of course, is the owner of Amazon and one of the richest men in the world.  

Patrick Soon-Shiong is a billionaire doctor who got rich based on medical technology he developed.  His parents fled China during the Japanese occupation in WW II and Soon-Shiong was born in South Africa in 1952.  I don't know exactly what his situation was, but here's a description of the status of Chinese in South Africa in Wikipedia:

"In 1966 the South African Institute of Race Relations described the negative effects of apartheid legislation on the Chinese community and the resulting brain drain:

No group is treated so inconsistently under South Africa's race legislation. Under the Immorality Act they are Non-White. The Group Areas Act says they are Coloured, subsection Chinese ... They are frequently mistaken for Japanese in public and have generally used White buses, hotels, cinemas and restaurants. But in Pretoria, only the consul-general's staff may use White buses .. Their future appears insecure and unstable. Because of past and present misery under South African laws, and what seems like more to come in the future, many Chinese are emigrating. Like many Coloured people who are leaving the country, they seem to favour Canada. Through humiliation and statutory discrimination South Africa is frustrating and alienating what should be a prized community.[5]: 389–390"

One would think that both Bezos and Soon-Shiong are rich and powerful enough to be able to stand up to Trump.  But I'm guessing they both have goals and ambitions about what they still want to do with their companies.  And they have put these ambitions above risking the possibility of retribution from Trump if he gets elected.  

And I'm guessing Soon-Shiong, while treated as a non-white in South Africa, also took some solace that he wasn't treated as Black.  It would be interesting to know how he felt when Nelson Mandela was freed from prison and eventually became the president of South Africa and won a Nobel Prize.  

His behavior in this matter suggests those events didn't really register with him positively.  He's certainly now showing Mandela's courage in fighting an authoritarian government.

This post is long enough.  I wanted to also talk about Vaclav Havel's essay, "The Power of the Powerless" which is highly relevant to the actions of actions of these two wealthy newspaper owners.  I'll do that in another post.  For those who want to get ahead, here's a link to the essay.  It's very good.

Here's the link to the follow up post on Havel's essay.

Cancelling the LA Times subscription was a clear choice, though not an easy one.  I grew up in LA and when my mother died, I inherited the house that I lived in from 6th grade through the beginning of college.  It's the house my mother lived in for 65 years, that we visited often, and that my children spent time when they visited their grandmother.  In addition to getting reasonably good news coverage, I also got local news that was relevant to owning a house there and visiting.  

But various social media folk have suggested other newspapers to switch to and I'll look into that.  Though I won't get  the local LA and California news.  I'd note that when you cancel, you get a list of one or two word reasons to let them know why you cancelled.  The best I could do was 'editorial policy' or something like that.  Leaving comments elsewhere limits you to very few words.  

[UPDATE Sunday November 3]

From an October 25, 2024  article in the LA Times, we learn what Soon-Shiong, the billionaire owner, said about the decision not to endorse anyone for president, even though the editorial board was about to endorse Harris:

“'I have no regrets whatsoever. In fact, I think it was exactly the right decision,' he said in an interview with The Times on Friday afternoon. 'The process was [to decide]: how do we actually best inform our readers? And there could be nobody better than us who try to sift the facts from fiction' while leaving it to readers to make their own final decision."

Today's LA Times editorial page seems to belie that policy.  Instead of "leaving it to readers to make their own decisions," the LA Times has a long list of ballot measures and candidates they endorse for other offices from local and state to federal.    

"Election 2024

The Times’ electoral endorsements for Nov. 5

STATEWIDE BALLOT MEASURES

Proposition 2: Yes

Proposition 3: Yes

Proposition 4: Yes

Proposition 5: Yes

Proposition 6: Yes

Proposition 32: Yes

Proposition 33: No

Proposition 34: No

Proposition 35: No

Proposition 36: No

LOS ANGELES CITY

City Council District 2: Adrin Nazarian

City Council District 10: Heather Hutt

City Council District 14: Ysabel Jurado

Charter Amendment DD: Yes

Charter Amendment LL: Yes

Charter Amendment HH: Yes

Charter Amendment II: Yes

Charter Amendment ER: Yes

Charter Amendment FF: No

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

District attorney: George Gascón

Measure A: Yes

Measure E: Yes

Measure G: Yes

LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

Seat 1: Andra Hoffman

Seat 3: David Vela

Seat 5: Nichelle Henderson

Seat 7: Kelsey Iino

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

District 1: Sherlett Hendy Newbill

District 3: Scott Schmerelson

District 5: Karla Griego

Measure US: Yes

LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES

Office No. 39: Steve Napolitano

Office No. 48: Ericka J. Wiley

Office No. 97: Sharon Ransom

Office No. 135: Steven Yee Mac

Office No. 137: Tracey M. Blount

STATE LEGISLATURE

Assembly District 52: Jessica Caloza

Assembly District 54: Mark Gonzalez

Assembly District 57: Sade Elhawary

Senate District 35: Michelle Chambers

U.S. HOUSE AND SENATE

U.S. Senate: Adam B. Schiff

27th Congressional District: George Whitesides

30th Congressional District: Laura Friedman

45th Congressional District: Derek Tran

47th Congressional District: Dave Min

Read the full endorsements online at latimes.com/opinion."