Farrago Follow Up - What Will Trump Do?

The previous post, Farrago, meandered into the power struggles in the US and the assault on science in favor of fantastic explanations of things.  [I prefer 'fantastic explanations' to 'conspiracy theories' because there are in fact conspiracies and people who pursue real conspiracies - like the Federalist Societies 40 year plan to pack the Supreme Court with justices who would rule their way - aren't always 'crackpots.'] 

Reader Jacob left a lengthy comment which you can see there.    Rather than answer it there, I've decided to answer it in a new post.  

Well, since I know many of you won't go back to see what he wrote, I've decided to put it here again.

"Jakob in IrelandSunday, October 6, 2024 at 5:07:00 AM AKDT

Hi Steve. Just a thought from across the pond...

When you started your enquiry last year asking HOW we got to this point (of finding more & more people believing the unproven in so many things around us) you more often than not explained the difference boiling down to university education levels. 

I felt, and still do, that you do have the view of someone from the world of questions, of successfully negotiating the discipline of the academic reasoning & rewards. I also acknowledge that you (graciously) agreed that talent isn't limited to intellectual gifts, but also those of the 'multiple intelligences' view of human ability & talents.

So with all that, we plunged (as so many did then) into just HOW we could be at this political junction of PRO and CON re what we thought to be ‘dictator-in-waiting’ Donald Trump. We didn't succeed in pinning the tail-on-that-donkey, did we?

So today, I’m wiping my slate clean: I’m with many, if not most here, asking this question: Does Mr Trump plan to win regardless his methods to achieve it?

Given these past years of many quick checks and deep dives with so-many streams of thought & analysis, I have honed my own little thought for this presidential election in America, if anyone wishes to consider it. Mr Trump’s preparation is laid, his goal easy to know. He only awaits the day in which his blow will be struck.

Mr. Trump’s seizure of the presidency (at precious cost to a Republic) can be affirmed by his Supreme Court and a Congress with too-narrow mandate to intervene in a politically effective way. But most importantly, far too many Americans have ‘drunk the Kool-Aid’.

I am nearly 18 years from living in the USA now; I am also a person born to its promise & culture, to its history & dreams. I moved countries to know other histories, other ways of seeing law, culture & dreams. I can admit my shock to see so many Americans willing to surrender rule-of-law to a man of autocratic instincts, hoping his constitutional betrayal will deliver their aspirations. I have told European friends (here) that Americans have bedrock faith in their Constitution and its rule-of-law standards. It will win out.

Now I suspect I held a child’s faith: Too many Americans are faith-weary. So many flock to a ‘strong man’ promising his so-sweet nothing, “I’ll take back control for you.”

I am sorry to say that I am relieved to live where I do, where so very many here are asking, “What is happening to the USA?”"

Here's my response.  

Jacob,  

Lots of questions rolled up into the reply.  And lots of answers too.  

First, your comment “you more often than not explained the difference boiling down to university education levels.”  I suspect that reflects more what you hear than what I’ve said over the years.  I have indeed argued that good education does train students to think logically and critically (among other things.)  That could start happening in elementary school and be honed further in middle and high school in a good school with good teachers.  At good schools the attentive students graduate with varying levels of those skills.  And I've acknowledged that a rigorous logical, left brain, education is the best way to start all kids.  But I would add that all kids should be given the space to work on something that interests them, and a good school would then use their areas of interest, to cultivate logical reasoning in a context that makes sense to each kid.  

As students go deeper into those topics at the university level, they can improve on those skills.  Statistics that show college educated voters tend (note ‘tend’) to lean more Democratic than people with fewer years of education.  

“The last few election cycles have been marked by an increasing divergence in outcomes based on education levels, with Democrats making serious gains with college-educated voters while Republicans win far greater shares of non-college educated white voters.” from Politico  

But you don’t have to get those skills only in school.  People who are different in some significant way from the ‘average’ - different religion, ethnicity, sexual identity, etc. - often grow up in at least two different worlds: 1) their family and group world and 2) the larger white world that has traditionally ruled the US.  And for those with non-conforming gender identity, they can be in a different reality from their family.  

The dissonance between how these citizens who experience one reality at home and a different reality at school often gives them a leg up on seeing the big picture, on seeing there isn't just one reality.  

And there are lots of others who get the dissonance even if they don’t go to college.  And there are many college graduates who got by without learning how to think critically.  Or who can, but have blind spots where they can’t apply those skills.  Or they apply them in a twisted way.  Like logically justifying white nationalism or misogyny based on odd facts and premises.    

Getting back on track

Hoping people would come to their political senses when they were given the facts was not something I held out much hope for, though it’s my natural flex.  I used to tell students writing reports for actual administrators that emotions always trump reason if there’s a conflict between the two.  So they needed to know their clients’ values so they could write their reports not so it made sense only to the student, but also to the client.  

I did hold out hope that enough US voters would choose the Democratic candidate over Trump.  That isn’t unreasonable since that happened in 2016 and 2020.  Though the way the electoral college works, that’s not enough.  Harris has to win big so the GOP can’t fight with any credibility over crumbs in swing states.  And can’t plausibly argue that Trump won.  Of course there will always be those who deny reality as the 2020 election has shown.

Now to your first question, which you essentially answered yourself affirmatively.  

"Does Mr Trump plan to win regardless his methods to achieve it?"

I agree that he does plan to challenge the election no matter what.  All the talk of rigging elections is meant to get people ready for such a challenge. The bigger the margin of victory the harder that will be.  The many lawyers and others who have been fighting Trump’s original challenges in 2020 are well versed in his strategy and paying close attention to new ones.  

And this time round, Biden is in charge of the military and national guard and other levers of power that will be much better prepared than in 2021 post election.  

And the people he has working for him are skilled administrators - as we can see in the preparations for Helene and the coordinated efforts after the storm hit, getting inflation down, implementing the Infrastructure bill, etc.  

Will Trump supporters, those who believe all his lies, come out with weapons and raise hell?  Possible.  Even likely in some places.  

One other point I’d like to make concerning reason and non-reason.  It’s clearer and clearer that Putin and Iran and North Korea have all been using the internet to stir up conflict in the US (not to mention in UK and France and other parts of the world.).  We know about it explicitly in 2016.  It's been noted in every election since.  It’s likely they were at it earlier during the time they were grooming Trump as an asset.  They played a role in Brexit.   They’re at it over Gaza and Israel.  Taking down democracies strengthens their message to their own people that democracy is inherently unstable and bad.  It also makes their aggression much easier.  

Playing on people’s fears - of immigrants, of crime, of economic disaster - is always going to capture a certain number of people.  Trump’s non-stop lies, amplified by Fox, and main stream media,  is a well planned strategy to make it impossible to tell truth from fiction.  Everything Trump says is projection of his own actions onto his opponents.  With AI and hard to spot fake video, the ability to tell truth from lies gets harder.  All traditional authorities are challenged - scientists, universities, doctors, teachers, anyone who ‘can prove’ something with more than sweeping declarations of how things are, are targets.  The Right’s attack on public education is part of that package.  They want to get public money funneled to private schools that they can control.  

It’s ironic that until Reagan began attacking government, it was usually the Left that challenged government and the Right that defended it.  

Trump has good reason to fight for power, even after he loses.  If there is a Harris administration he will be on trial still and very likely sentenced to prison. At which point I wouldn’t be surprised if he fled to Cuba or another Russian ally.  Or Saudi Arabia.  

When he’s gone this isn’t over.  Our authoritarian enemies will continue to do what they can to weaken the West.  The Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society will continue to fight for the power of the rich white elite to control the country.  

Fortunately their perfect candidate is also a huge liability.  Republicans’ eagerness to exercise their post Roe power at the state level has alerted and alarmed sensible voters.  And their demands for abject loyalty has resulted in less than stellar candidates in down ballot races - like North Carolina’s Mark Robinson, candidate for Governor.  

We’ll know in a month how the election goes, and then we’ll have to wait and see how the post election goes.  

You may well have made a good decision when you established yourselves in Northern Ireland.  But if the US goes down, no one is safe.   

Trump Beat Biden In Alaska By Only 35K Votes, 234K Didn't Vote

In 2016, Trump beat Clinton, in Alaska, by 46,943 votes.  

From Alaska Div of Elections

While that seems like a lot of votes, there were 207,287 registered voters WHO DIDN'T VOTE.  That's fewer than the number who voted, but it's still a huge number.  60% of registered voters voted.  

A caveat:  Not all the people on the Alaska voter list still live in Alaska or are even alive.  But even if the ineligibles equaled 25% (1/4) of the list, that would still leave 150,000 people who didn't think it was important or convenient enough to vote.  

From: Alaska Div of Elections

In 2020, Trump beat Biden, in Alaska, by 35,742 votes.  

This time there were 234,247 people who didn't vote.  Say, 175,000 of them were still eligible Alaska voters.

And this time, according to the State's website, there were almost 70,000 more voters.  Trump's winning margin shrank by 21,000 votes, by more than 1/3.  

We learned a lot more about Trump after the 2016 election.

A lot of things happened during Trump's presidency from a pandemic during which Trump said repeatedly that COVID would just go away. See this CNN graphic of his many such proclamations along with the increasing number of cases.

And Trump was impeached once.  

And I suspect, sadly, that many people voted for Biden (but not Clinton) just because he was a man.

A lot more has happened since the 2020 election. 

• There was the January 6 insurrection that he promoted. 
• Another impeachment.
• The 50 plus lost Trump court cases challenging Biden's election win.
• The various Trump indictments and convictions.
• The classified documents stored in a Mar-a-Lago bathroom.
• The overturning of Roe v Wade
• The publicity over the Supreme Court's right wing justices' unreported gifts, in one case, millions of dollars worth.
• The Court's granting immunity to presidents.

Meanwhile the Biden administration lowered the inflation they inherited and passed huge infrastructure bills which have pumped billions into the US economy and are repairing much of our long neglected bridges, roads, electrical grids, internet access, ports, airports, and many other facilities. 

Sure, many die-hard Trump voters limit their intake of information to media that only say good things about Trump and terrible things about Democrats.  But many others - Independents, Republicans - who do get more than Fox News and further right social media propaganda.  

I have no data on how many of the Alaska non-voters were male or female or something else.  But surely there are 30,000 Alaska women, and men with daughters, who for whatever reason, did not vote in 2020, but who have an interest in making sure that the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe, will not lead to restrictions on female health procedures in Alaska.  Let's let them know they can flip Alaska blue.  Yes, I know it's a stretch, but it's certainly within possibility.

For context, NPR reported in 2020 the margins in the swing states that voted for Biden:

Arizona - 10,457 votes

Georgia - 12,670

Michigan - 154,188

Nevada - 33,506

Pennsylvania - 81,660

Wisconsin - 20,282

 Alaska has way fewer people than these states.  Nevertheless, there were 237,000 registered voters in Alaska who didn't vote in 2020. 

The Alaska Redistricting Board's Dramatic Pleas For Military Voters And JBER's 3.5% Voter Turnout [Updated 8/31/22]

The Republican majority of the Alaska Redistricting Board created elaborate stories to justify pairing a Muldoon house district with Eagle River.  When that was rejected by the Alaska Supreme Court, they made even more passionate pleas to keep JBER with Chugiak in a state senate district.   It was mostly about the military connections,  and how the holy soldiers would be deprived of their representation if paired with the unholy (read: Democratic) downtown. 

Simpson:  "The most partisan is the proposed pairing of JBER and downtown.  This would diminish the voice of our valued military personal.  I can’t accept that.  I will vote for 3B."

Simpson: "I find the pairing of 23 and 24 ER and Chugiak the more compelling solution.  Pairing JBER with downtown overlooks a conflict of interest and opens us to a challenge to that constituency.  Chugiak has developed as a bedroom community for the military families.  They send their kids to middle school and high school there.  That testimony was compelling to that pairing."

Marcum:  "I’m very uncomfortable with Option 2 because it moves JBER and links it with D17.  It makes the least sense for any possible pairings.  Downtown is the arts and tourism, not what makes up JBER.  It is used to wake up the military community.  Choosing option 2 is an intentional intent to break up that natural pairing.  JBER should be with Chugiak" [note, these were my notes and I suspect I missed some words, but I did get the tone and intent correct.] 

Marcum:  "I would like say on behalf of our military.  Implications for military will be major.  Dominated by downtown voters.  JBER voice will be lost.  Ironic that those who have sacrificed the most."

You can see each of them and Member Binkley on the video on this blog post.   

[UPDATED August 31, 2022:  I knew I had their comments and my responses somewhere, but couldn't find them when I wrote this.  They're in this post - at the end.  My comments are in red which should make that section easier to find.]

So, let's look at that lost voice.  .   Here are the results from House District 18 for August 16 primary election.  Those brave soldiers barely whispered

 

Note that the JBER precinct has 7,528 registered voters out of 12,157 voters total.  That means they comprise about 60% of the voters in the district.  Yet only 277 JBER precinct voters actually voted out of 1184 total votes.  Although they are 60% of the total voters, they were only 23% of the people who actually voted.  The State's chart shows that only 3.68% of JBER voters voted!

The military tend not to vote.  All the candidates with parts of their district on base know this.  The fact that campaigning on base is difficult - candidates aren't allowed to go door to door for example - doesn't bother candidates too much because the military tend not to vote in large numbers.  Particularly for state offices.  (I haven't found the precinct by precinct stats for the US Senate or House races which might have gotten a slightly higher percent of JBER voters.)

So all the theatrics by Budd Simpson, Bethany Marcum, and to a lesser extent John Binkley about how JBER needed to be paired with Chugiak so they could be fairly represented and not, God forbid, with downtown, was just that - an act to capture one more Republican state senate seat.  

Fortunately, the Alaska Supreme Court saw through the dramatics, thanks, in large part to minority Redistricting Board members Melanie Bahnke and Nicole Borromeo.  

Why Alaskans Need To Vote - 25% of Eligible Voters Voted For Our Governor; 19% Voted For Anchorage Mayor

As Alaskans watch our COVID numbers continue to go up, our Governor and Anchorage's Mayor make no serious efforts to curb the pandemic.  This is what happens when people think their vote doesn't matter.  

In 2018, 285,009 or 49.54% of eligible voters voted. 

In the Governor's race, Dunleavy got 51.4% of the votes.  

That means  25% of eligible voters voted for the current Governor

In 2021, 90,816, or 38.36%, of Anchorage voters voted in the mayoral runoff.

Bronson got 50.66% of those votes.

That means he got elected with 19.4% of eligible Anchorage voters.  

The Alaska Redistricting Board Meets Tomorrow (Tuesday) Afternoon [Updated]

 Some of you may recall that my life got hijacked for almost three years after I innocently went to the Alaska Redistricting Board meeting in 2011.  Sine then technology (for mapping and for meeting) have changed a lot.  And so has the depth of local/state news coverage in Alaska.  And I have out-of-state grandkids who hadn't been born yet last time.  

I've been wondering if I really want to get so deeply involved this time.  And considering that the meetings won't be in person (for a while at least), it will be easier to attend, but more difficult to chat with the board members and other members of the public during breaks and after meetings.  

But my stalling got a bit of a jolt today when I got an email from someone who is interested in doing an academic project on the board.  She's already done a bit of homework and reminded me I'm getting out of date on this topic.  And part of her homework got her to my tab above that indexes all the redistricting posts I did in the past.  

Here are three links she just sent me:

Tomorrow's meeting* - starts at 2:30pm:

http://www.akleg.gov/basis/Committee/Details/31?code=HRDB#tab2_7

Free map-making - my quick look suggests this is based on the 2010 census numbers and the districts the board created last time.  I'm not sure how quickly this will be updated when the new census data come in.  But last time, this sort of free citizen available software was definitely not available.  

https://davesredistricting.org/maps#home

(I just noticed there is more than one open-source map-making website!)

Paper on nesting districts:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2330443X.2020.1774452

(This is an article that was published in April of this year looking at how you can gerrymander districts in states that allow nesting.  That is states where Senate districts are made up of two paired House districts.  The study is about Alaska.)

*[Updated 11pm]:Here's the agenda

Discussion: Procurement Code Options, TELECONFERENCED

Legislative vs. Administrative

Available for Questions:

- Emily Nauman, Attorney, Legislative Legal Svcs.

- Rachel Witty, Attorney, Dept. of Law

- JC Kestel, Procurement Officer, LAA

Adoption of Procurement Code

Discussion: RFPs for Proposals for Independent

Legal Services

- Review of 2011 RFP

- Timeline for publishing RFP & selection of firm

- Review options to proceed

- Provide direction to Executive Director

Election Thoughts Post 1 - Why Did Biden Get Only 771,884 Votes When Kentucky Has 1.67 Million Registered Democrats? [UPDATED]

 I don't know the answer.  I don't know much about Kentucky at all.  But from far away it seems odd.  (Kathy in Kentucky, any insights you can share would be appreciated.  And, btw, it turns out my post on when states can count wasn't totally accurate. Kentucky wasn't last in vote counting.  Alaska, while legally allowed to count ballots starting after the polls closed, chose to wait a week to do so. Or maybe Kentucky just chucked all the mail-in votes.) [UPDATE Nov 8:  Be sure to see Kathy's comments below.  It answers a bunch of my questions.]

Biden got just 771,884 votes in Kentucky.

Here's the official vote tally from the LA Times:

And from the Kentucky election website, here are the numbers of registered voters.  There are 1.67 million Democratic voters. I cut it off so the numbers would be large enough to see here, but you can go see the original at the Kentucky website.

That means less than half the Democratic voters voted for Biden.  

Given that this is Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's home state and he's shown he's willing to do anything to keep his seat and his majority to thwart Democrats since Obama was first elected, I think this ought to be looked into to be sure that there wasn't serious election irregularities.  

Newsweek reported in 2019:

"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell squashed two bills intended to ensure voting security on Thursday, just one day after former special counsel Robert Mueller warned that Russians were attempting to sabotage the 2020 presidential elections "as we sit here."

McConnell said he wouldn't allow a vote on the bills because they were "so partisan," but, as previously reported, earlier this year McConnell received a slew of donations from four of the top voting machine lobbyists in the country."

Here's a longer New Yorker article entitled Mitch McConnell is Making the 2020 Election Open Season for Hackers

This post was in response to a Tweet that pointed out the numbers.

[Note:  There are so many things to write about on the election.  I'm resisting my natural tendency to try to integrate 20 different threads into one comprehensive post.  Instead I'll just post on relatively discreet topics.  I'll either let the reader pull them all together or maybe at the end I'll figure out a way to connect all the dots.]

Here's Why I'm Calling This For Biden

 Despite all the handwringing, and recognizing that people don’t want to repeat their dashed expectations of 2016, I think all the signs point to Biden winning comfortably.  I know the media explore all the possible hidden traps - and some are there - but the media make money from tension and uncertainty.  

Basically, 2020 is VERY different from 2016. 

1. Trump was a con-artist who billed himself as an exceptionally talented business man in 2016 and people who were tired of ‘gridlock’ thought they should give him a try.  Drain the swamp and all that.  But the American people know a lot more about Trump now.  They only people still with him are those who 
1. Are like, or think they are like, Trump
1. The greedy - tax cuts and good stock market have increased their wealth
2. The needy - those who need a father figure to tell them what to think and do, to nurse their prejudices and encourage their hate, to protect them from their worst fears (includes members of evangelical and fundamentalist churches who support Trump and gun fetishists)
3. The racists and the misogynists and the abusive
4. Those who don’t believe in democracy
2. Are strongly anti-communist or anti-socialist - including those who came to the US from communist and/or socialist countries, and people who have no idea what those words mean, but are strongly against them.
3. Die-hard Republicans for whom voting for a Democrat would be an act of betrayal
2. Now we know about misinformation campaigns, infiltration of social media, Russian interference and other machinations to turn voters for Trump and against Hillary Clinton
3. The anti-Trump side has gained new recruits
1. People who didn’t realize how bad Trump would be  and didn’t vote or voted for 3rd party candidates are now ready to go vote like it matters
2. The constant barrage of videos of blacks being killed by cops, being Karened, plus Trump’s own support of white supremacy and other racist acts and the resulting Black Lives Matter protests have mobilized many non-voters of color and made many white folks more understanding of the level of racism in the US and the danger of another four years of Trump.
3. The many books unmasking the Trump myth, from scholars, from Trump family members and long time employees, from Trump appointees changed what people know about Trump.  And while most people don’t read books, key passages have been repeated over and over again in the media and social media.  All these have peeled off people who voted for Trump and converted them to non-voters or Biden voters
4. The Parkland Students movement has mobilized youth to register to vote.  They helped speed up the unraveling of the NRA and shown high school students they have power.
5. Floridians gave felons the right to vote and while Republicans are blocking their participation as best as they can, still tens of thousands can now vote.  
6. Climate change activists and Native Activists and others are all bringing new voters out.
7. There's a collection of 'traditional' Republicans who are working hard to defeat Trump, using the same PR techniques they've used in the past to defeat Democrats (and I'm worried about who their targets might be in the future)
4. COVID-19 has exposed all Trump’s flaws and incompetence as a president and reports say that this is mobilizing some of the older white vote away from Trump, as well as all those affected directly by the virus - essential workers, those who have gotten sick, and the families of those of have been sick or who have died
5. Biden is a very different candidate from Clinton
1. He’s not a woman.  As bad as it reflects on Americans, women candidates are judged differently from men and it costs them votes.  
2. He’s not Hillary.  She’s a very competent wonk, but didn’t come across as likable to many.  She also carried the baggage of the Clintons’ post presidency wealth acquisition.  (But also remember she got 3 million more votes than Trump did.)
3. Clinton had to fight constant attacks about Benghazi and emails.  The Hunter Biden attacks haven’t stuck.  Partly because we understand a lot more about Trump’s fake news industry.  
4. Biden is the opposite of Trump.  He’s decent, he’s compassionate, he’s got loving family and friends.  He makes as good of a uniter candidate as we could want in contrast to Trump’s divisiveness.
6. The Democrats have paid much more attention to the electoral college this time round
7. The Democrats have a huge team of lawyers ready to fight Trump challenges to the election.  There will be no Gore concession unless they are sure he lost the election fairly.
8. There’s been record numbers of early voters and mail-in voters - and as I’ve tried to outline above, the pool of anti-Trump new voters is much bigger than pro-Trump voters.
9. Democrats have raised unheard of money from online campaigns with relatively small average contributions which demonstrates a level of fear and activism we haven’t seen for a long time.  
10. The polls are in Biden’s favor, even in the swing states.  Some traditionally Republican strongholds are polling close.  

That doesn’t mean that Biden can’t lose (so, yes, if you haven’t voted yet, you still need to go vote.)   It doesn’t mean that Russians or Republicans haven’t schemed to hack voting machines so they turn every sixth Biden vote into a Trump vote.  That’s relatively easy to program and hard to detect if it’s done in just a few precincts.  But there are ways to spot such efforts.  

And it doesn’t mean that Biden will be a great president.  He’s got a pandemic to deal with.  He’s got the destruction of many government agencies to repair.  He’s got a volatile Trump out there who’s addicted to attention and adulation and would like nothing better to make Biden fail.  And if Democrats don’t flip the Senate, he’s got to fight for every inch.  

But it looks to me that all the little signs have lined up in Biden’s favor.  For him to lose a lot of things have to go haywire, and if that happens it will suggest that there were dirty tricks we hadn’t anticipated.  Everything that Trump says about his campaign - that if he doesn’t win it’s because the election was stolen - is actually the truth about the Biden campaign.  

Fictional Accuracy Of Elections And The Iowa Caucus

As the Nevada caucuses begin, I'm still pondering how pundits, the media in general, and people in general reacted to the Iowa caucuses.  My sense is that caucuses are a kind of community gathering where people share with others to get a sense of how the collective feels about the candidates.  But we are in a world that demands precision, demand instant results.  People get impatient if it takes a website to open in more than 2 seconds, so election results need to be available 20 minutes after the polls close.  But what do the numbers mean anyway?

Caucus Thoughts

I’ve been to two caucuses in Anchorage - 2008 and 2016.  People come together.  Lots of people.  There’s camaraderie,  laughter, crowds, confusion, donuts, and a chance to see lots of folks you haven’t seen for a while.  

Once into your precinct rooms, talk gets more serious, but there’s still a friendly banter about candidates.  It’s time to hear from proponents of different candidates, to ask questions, and be asked questions.  Some people have done their homework, others are seeking answers.  

People eventually get asked to stand in different parts of the room depending on which candidate they support.  Then those candidates with too few supporters are eliminated and their supporters get to join their second choice.  

If the group is small, it’s easy to get an accurate count.  If there are 100 or more, it starts getting trickier.  People have to stand still.  Did you count him already? What about her?

But if the tally is 111 or 113 it doesn’t really matter that much.  You’ve got a good sense that a lot more people want candidate A over candidate B.  Besides, the people in the room represent only those people who had the time, transportation, or interest to go.  There are plenty more people who couldn’t or just didn’t come.  

There’s lots good about a caucus.  The chance to see and talk and debate with lots of people - some good friends, some acquaintances you haven’t seen a while, and some strangers you want to see again or not.  It’s a way to get more information about candidates, to learn why others support or don’t support different candidates.  And it’s a way to get a sense of how many people prefer this candidate over that one.  It's a lot different from making the decision alone in the voting booth.

Nowadays, science and efficiency and legal (but not scientific) precision are demanded.  The people of the media have made elections into a sport with stats that tell us precisely what the electorate wants down to two or three decimal points.  

All this comes to mind as I watch the coverage of the Iowa caucuses.  Here we have an old fashioned process that allows neighbors and friends to work out who they want to support, even with the benefits of being able to pick a second choice when it’s clear their first choice isn’t going to make it.  In the past, I’m sure, these things never had to be lunar landing precise, just good enough.  And they served a lot of social functions that individually marking a ballot in a curtained off booth doesn’t serve.  People get a better sense of what those voting for other candidates are thinking.  And they even learn that people are voting for their own preference for different reasons.

This process has been coming into conflict with the increasing demands from the politicians and the media for precision.  Iowa’s attempts to ‘bring the caucus into the 21st Century’ by using an app, just didn’t work out.  And the candidates and the media, who need the certainty of precise numbers, were left to run off to New Hampshire without the resolution they needed as quickly as they needed it.  

It makes sense for elections to be precise, and if people choose not to vote, well, that’s their choice.  (Unless it’s manufactured by removing people from the voting rolls, limiting access to the polls by having fewer polling places, or not enough workers or ballots, and other such schemes.)  But this form of caucus has served a lot of other purposes beyond getting a final precise voting count.  

And the numerical precision that the media demand, really isn’t as precise or reflective of what people want any way.  And even when nearly 3 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump, the technicalities of the electoral college voided all those votes.   

And the purging of voters in states like Florida and Michigan, not to mention irregularities with the unbacked up voting machines, probably were enough to fix the electoral college vote.  (Greg Palast tells us that while Trump won by 13,107 in Michigan, 449,922 voters (mostly black) had been purged from the voting list.)

I’d note that Alaska has a petition gathering signatures now that would allow for ranked-choice voting.  That is, like in a caucus, they would be able to indicate their second and third choices, so two candidates they like wouldn’t split the vote and allow one they don’t like to win.  Which is part of what’s in the caucus process.  

I think we're being way too controlled by technological demands for an artificial accuracy and for instant turnaround in the elections.  The harder to measure social and civic benefits of voting itself are ignored and sacrificed in exchange.  And the bigger issues of voter suppression and hacking voting machines are not getting the attention they should get.  Trump will win this election only with the help of foreign propaganda, voter purging, and tampering with the count of votes, both electronic and otherwise.  

At Some Point, Honesty Will Come Back Into Fashion. Maybe November 2020

The website Amino, the source of this image, says the original Japanese intent of the phrase "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" was to keep a person pure, but

"Now it means turning a blind eye to evil and wrongdoing. It is meant to represent the fear of witnessing or speaking about evil and choosing to ignore its existence altogether."

That seems to be a pretty good description of what most Republican Senators are doing.  Avoiding any and all evidence of what they know is true.  First McConnell just wanted to acquit Trump with no real trial at all.  No witnesses.  No evidence.  And they're doing their best to hide what little will happen from the public.  The  Senate has added new, greatly restricted rules for press access to cover the impeachment.

Tim Miller, at The Bulwark, writes about Sen Martha McSally's response to reporter Manu Raju's question whether the Senate should take new evidence in the impeachment hearing:

“Manu, you’re a liberal hack. I’m not talking to you. You’re a liberal hack.”

Miller goes on to say this is the Republican 'heel turn' in response to questions about impeachment.

"They all know Trump is guilty. The only question is whether or not they can avoid admitting this, out loud, before they vote to acquit him. Every action Republicans take in the coming days should be viewed through the lens of them casting about for a strategy that lets them avoid telling voters what they actually believe."

Miller also tells us they are squeezed between doing what's right and being attacked by Trump.

My junior Senator - Dan Sullivan - was a marine.  Marines are supposed to be known for their courage and for risking their lives to protect the US.  That's the PR anyway.

In the Senate he doesn't seem ready to even risk his Senate seat to do the right thing.  I'm sure he's saying that not criticizing Trump means he can get things from this administration for Alaska.  Short term gains, long term disasters.  My senior Senator - Lisa Murkowski - is giving signs of trying to get out from under the charade, but we'll have to wait and see.

We also learn today that two of Trump's defense attorneys (Dershowitz and Starr) defended Jeffrey Epstein.  (Who committed suicide in prison where he was supposed to be watched carefully, and the video mysteriously disappeared.  This was a guy who hosted many big name men with underage girls.)  Dershowitz has been implicated in going to Epstein's parties.

From a Tweet by Kenneth Boykin:

"Ken Starr, the guy who thought Bill Clinton should be removed from office for a blowjob, is going to argue that Donald Trump should remain in office even after he illegally asked a foreign government to interfere in our elections."

Meanwhile Emptywheel raises questions about how presiding over the impeachment will affect Chief Justice John Roberts, who's not ever running for reelection:

Q: Does Roberts' presiding over Trump's trial present recusal issues for the pending Trump lawsuits? Might presiding over it change how he'd rule?

Everyone gets pulled into the mud.

My sense is that in a fair election, Trump gets beat bad by any of the Democrats, even if there is an automatic loss of votes if the candidate is a women or person of color..  Though that could be partially made up by people coming out to vote who wouldn't otherwise.  

But I know the Trump team will do everything they can to suppress voters, sway votes through outright lies, and meddle, if they can, with voting machines and electronic registration lists.  So, I'm not counting on a fair election.  

"The solution was clear, Wendell said: Buy the votes of Senators" - Being Better Citizens Today By Knowing The Past

Alaskans are likely aware of William Seward more than the rest of the country.  After all, he was the man who arranged to buy Alaska from the Russians, and we even have a state holiday honoring Seward.  But that doesn't mean know much about him.  A local journalist, Mike The Man Who Bought Alaska:  William H. Seward.  He also wrote companion book - The Man Who Sold Alaska: Tsar Alexander II of Russia.  The books came out in 2017, to celebrate Alaska's 150th year as part of the United States.
Dunham, made an effort to educate us when he wrote the book

I read the Seward volume flying down to LA.  It's short and easy to read.

I learned that Seward did a lot of other things besides buy Alaska.  And I already did a post on some of that.

This post is to remind us that history is worth studying so that we understand more about the present.  I've got a few quotes that don't need much comment from me.

Immigration Fights

"Prejudice against Catholics,  especially Irish, was perhaps more intense in New York than prejudice against blacks.  Religious instruction was part of every elementary school curriculum and the doctrine taught would be Protestant, with a good measure of virulent anti-Catholicism thrown in.
Irish immigrants balked at sending their children to such schools and, as a result, many children of Irish parents didn't attend school at all.  Seward's efforts to see that educational funding was shared with Catholic schools raised the ire of the anti-immigrant party that took the name "Know-Nothings."  (p. 26)

Ignorant Voters

"To win the big Northern states of New York and Pennsylvania, Clay positioned himself as the pro-immigration candidate, hoping to obtain the support of German and Irish newcomers who tended to vote Democratic.  It backfired.  Anti-immigrant riots broke out in Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love.  The Know-Nothings backed Martin Van Buren, an unabashed nativist.  Clay lost New York and Polk won the election.
The Know-Nothing movement was to me a source of apprehension,"  Seward said.  "When I saw not only individuals but whole communities and parties swept away by an impulse contradicting the very fundamental idea on which the Government rests, I began to doubt whether the American people had such wisdom as I had always given them credit for."  (p. 30)]

Congressional Relationships I

"The first blows of he Civil War came in May of 1856.  Sumner gave a two-day speech dripping with pornographic innuendo and pillorying South Carolina Senator Andrew Butler, comparing him to Don Quixote, infatuated by a harlot.
Two days later, Butler's cousin, Representative Preston Books, stalked into the Senate, found Sumner at his desk and demanded an apology.  Sumner refused, not even looking up from the paper he was writing on.  Brooks used his cane to pummel the Massachusetts Senator nearly to death.
Brooks was exonerated by the House of Representatives. . ." (pp. 39-40)

Bad Supreme Court Decisions

"In March 1858 the Supreme Court gave its verdict in the case of Dred Schott, a slave whose master brought him to a free state.  Scott argued that, as an American citizen in a state that did not allow slavery, he ought to be free.  The court, however, declared that under the Constitution blacks were not and could never be citizens.
Seward denounced the Dred Scott decision in terms that would be considered impolitic if applied to a Supreme Court decision today. "Judicial usurpation is more odious and intolerable than any other among the manifold practices of tyranny," he said, and argued that it was time to reorganize the judicial branch to bring it 'into harmony with the Constitution.'"  (p.  40)

Congressional Relationships II

"Through all the bitterness of the Kansas-Nebraska debates, the attacks in the press and even from friends, Seward remained personally on good terms with members of the other side, dining, drinking, joking and playing whist with them when they weren't in verbal combat on the floor of the Senate.
He closely cooperated with pro-slave Democrat Texas Senator Thomas Rust and even planned a trip around the world with him.  When Rust killed himself in 1857 after being diagnosed with cancer, Seward called it a tragedy for both himself and the country.
In the following year, Mississippi's Jefferson Davis spent weeks in a darkened sickroom because of an eye infection.  Seward visited almost every day, reading the newspapers to him and filling him in on the gossip of the capital."

Impeachment

"Seward took the lead in preparing Johnson's defense.  Working with Democrats and the few moderate Republicans still speaking to him, he obtained a top defense team and raised funds to cover their costs.  He turned to the most powerful lobbyist in Washington, Cornelius Wendell, a man who knew the minds - and the price - of every member of Congress better than they knew themselves.
The solution was clear, Wendell said:  Buy the votes of Senators.  The cost:  a quarter of a million dollars.  Seward raised the money.  Wendell got it to the right people."

Gun Lobby Example: Here's Why The Public Interest Regularly Gets Sabotaged

It became clear to me, while teaching about ethics and 'the public interest' that there were good explanations why the public interest loses out regularly to special interests.

Single Issue vs. Many Issues
Each special interest is focused narrowly on one topic - developers, airlines, doctors, unions, auto manufacturers, the  mining industry, oil industry, etc - are narrowly focused on lobbying for what is most important to them.

Protecting the public interest against all those many well funded private interests, is more difficult.  It's hard to keep up with all the threats to the public interest because the public interest is much broader and more generalized.  The public has interests in a clean environment, fair treatment of consumers, work place safety, good education, auto safety, and on and on.  Protecting all these against corporations looking for less regulation, higher profits, as well as tax benefits, is hard.  There's just too much to keep up with.

This LA Times article by George Skelton about the gun lobby and the gun control interests of the public illustrates this basic dilemma for those interested in protecting the public interest.

From George Skelton, LA Times:

Sure, voters tell pollsters Congress should pass legislation to toughen up background checks on gun buyers. Most even want to ban military-style assault weapons.
But gun control is far down the list of voters’ priorities. Many other policy issues rank higher: immigration, jobs, schools, climate change.…
So after every shooting massacre, when more innocent people are murdered by some wacko with a firearm designed for mass killing, there’s tough talk, screaming and flailing for a few days. Then everyone calms down and snoozes until the next slaughter.
Politicians — mainly Republicans and moderate Democrats in Congress — don’t feel constant pressure from gun control supporters. These voters have been firing with cap pistols.
But the other side is rigidly committed. The gun zealots — those mesmerized by the power of firearms — tend to be “single-issue” voters who are inspired by the National Rifle Assn. Their No. 1 litmus test for any candidate is the politician’s position on gun rights.
Most Republicans and many moderate Democrats are scared silly and timidly vote against virtually all meaningful gun controls. That is, unless the congressional leader is a Republican, such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Then the frightened politicians are spared from voting at all because the leader blocks the bill from the floor.
At least, that’s the way it has always been.

So there it is spelled out - while most people want some form of legislation to curb gun violence, it's one of many issues of interest.  They aren't all focused and ready to lobby hard on that single issue.

But gun lobbyists are focused on that one specific issue at the receipt of an email.


While I think this article makes that point clearly, I find Skelton's style a little loose.  Some examples:

1. " But gun control is far down the list of voters’ priorities. Many other policy issues rank higher: immigration, jobs, schools, climate change.…"
Well here's a summary of issues - first overall, then by different political shades.  The list comes from a Citizens Climate Lobby talk in November 2018 by

Click on image to enlarge and focus

I don't know where Skelton came up with his list of top issues, but this one is more statistically valid I suspect.

2.  "some wacko with a firearm"  - Sorry, this just perpetuates stereotypes of mass shooters as totally crazy folks.  Sure, anyone who mows down a bunch of people is not within the normal range of empathy, moral judgment, personal control, and perhaps other categories.  But given the characteristics of mass shooters listed in the previous post, they've mostly been abused or bullied and didn't have the kind of support most people get.  In that context, their behavior might not seem so irrational or crazy.  We need less clichéd ways of talking about these people so we can come up with effective ways of 1) not letting people get to this stage and 2) having systems in place that intervene when they start showing signs or even talking about shooting up folks.

3.  "mainly Republicans and moderate Democrats in Congress"  - What the hell is a moderate Democrat?  I keep having to remind people that if Richard Nixon was in today's Congress he'd be labeled among the most liberal Democrats.  We got the EPA, the Clean Water Act, the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, and a bunch of other things (Roe v Wade decision came down while he was president and he didn't yell and scream about it)  during his administration.  Yet he was seen in his day as conservative.  Moderate Democrats today are conservatives by 1960s-1970s standards.  Calling them moderates is a huge misnomer.

OK, I'm done.  No wait, I wanted to offer a possible option for the public interest.

The Citizens Climate Lobby is a public interest lobbying group (which I'm a member of) that is focusing very narrowly on one issue - getting a carbon fee and dividend law passed.  They've got chapters in almost every Congressional district so constituents can lobby - regularly, cordially, and with lots of information - their members of congress.  It's a good model.  If we had Citizens  XXXX Lobby for all of those issues on the chart above we could get a long way in blocking special interests whose favored legislation has harmful consequences on the public interest.

Traffic Jam Anchorage Style On My Way To Ask Voter Registration Questions

The traffic wasn't moving on Benson as I was heading to the elections office to turn in to registrations and ask some questions about PFD registration and registering homeless folks.

I got onto Benson at Spenard and the left lane wasn't moving shortly after that.  The two right lanes were empty.  Here I was at Benson and C after the light's been red a while.

The two left lanes weren't moving because the folks in the right lanes were merging because at A street they were completely blocked off.  My lane had a dying flare in it, so basically everyone had to move over to the far left lane.

At A Street and Benson, the problem was revealed.  I'm guessing someone ran a red light, just can't tell which one.

I think I waited about four or five extra red lights, maybe fifteen extra minutes.  This is just normal conditions in lots of parts of LA.

At the elections office I learned 

Yes, when you register for the Alaska Permanent Fund  Dividend (PFD) check, you're automatically registered.  Some people, they told me, complained because they had no choice.  She did refer me to the Elections website which has a PDF updated August 2018, which answers all my questions.

I guess this is the key question, all the others, clarify this one:

"Why is the Division of Elections sending me mail?
The law requires the Division of Elections to send each PFD applicant that is eligible to vote an opt-out mailer giving the applicant/voter the option to opt-out of being automatically registered to vote or have their voter registration record updated."

I take this to mean that everyone who applies gets a letter from the Division of Elections, either to opt out, change information (namely address), or do nothing.  If I got such a notice, I've totally forgotten it.  If you do nothing, and you're already registered, everything stays the same.  If you aren't registered and do nothing, you get registered to vote.

I'd note that in October 2016, when the initiative to add automatic PFD registration  was coming before the voters in November, Paul Jenkins had an opinion piece saying it was a waste of money, that people already had lots of ways to register if they wanted to.   But then his real opposition to the initiative is revealed when he writes near the end:

"To argue the initiative is not about advancing Democrat fortunes at our expense is nonsensical. If the left wants to register voters it should pick up the check and not pass it on to a cash-strapped state while pretending it is for the civic good."

I would have to do some more research to see if his predictions that more Democrats will be signed up is true.  I suspect that would be hard to determine since people are automatically registered as "undeclared."  They would have to opt to change their party registration and I'm guessing most won't.

My guess is that Republicans wouldn't have any problem with spending money on this if they thought it would add Republican voters.

The Hill cites a recent Brennan Center report:

"Nine southern states previously had to get approval from the Department of Justice to change voting policies under a provision in the 1965 Voting Rights Act, but the Supreme Court struck down that measure in 2013.
“Across the board, formerly covered jurisdictions increased their purge rates after 2012 more than noncovered jurisdictions,” the report found.
The center highlighted Texas, Georgia and Virginia as states impacted by the 2013 Supreme Court ruling with higher rates of voter purging."

Actually there were 16 states overall that had to get preclearance from the Department of Justice before the Supreme Court ruling and Alaska was one of them.

But with the PFD registration (more people get PFD's than drivers licenses) Alaska has to be one of the most aggressive states actually getting people onto the rolls instead of off.

And it's nice to live in a state that's making it as easy as possible for people to register to vote.  Unlike states where they are now aggressively purging the roles.  

I'm curious what this means for voter registrars.  How many people aren't registered.  Of the two I registered last Friday, one had moved from out of state, so he clearly hadn't registered yet.  But the other seemed to be someone who would have gotten a PFD check last year.  But they checked and he wasn't registered.  And, of course, all the people turning 18 before the election.


Homeless Registration?

People can use Bean's Cafe, or any other place they regularly eat at as their address.  If they are living in a homeless camp off the bike trail through the woods, they can give the closest intersection or whatever description that will allow the elections office to determine what district they are in.  Of course that won't work too well for mail-in only elections.  But you can still go and vote early at various locations.

Standing For Salmon, Registering Voters, Visiting Photographer

Stand for Salmon is a group that got an initiative onto the November ballot that would better protect salmon habitat in Alaska.  An industry group, made up of mining and other resource extraction companies, is calling themselves Stand for Alaska, to oppose Ballot Initiative 1.

I haven't read through the initiative - it's about eight pages long.  I can do that.  But it was disqualified by the Lt. Governor (who supervises elections) and Stand for Salmon sued.  The Alaska Supreme Court has now ordered the initiative to be on the ballot, but with some changes.  We have to wait to see what the Lt. Governor's elections team does before we can know exactly what will be on the ballot initiative.  My basic understanding is that the initiative would bring back some of the protections Alaskans had before the legislature failed to renew our Coastal Zone Management Program.   The elimination of the program, which gave coastal communities much more say in projects, was supported by resource extraction organizations that didn't like all the public participation that slowed down or ended their project approval processes.  But that's my general impression and I have to get into the details soon.

In the meantime, you can start at Ballotopedia which gives much better coverage than I could give at this point.

All this introduction leads into the Salmon BBQ that Stand For Salmon threw at the Cuddy Family Park, Friday evening to celebrate Alaska Wild Salmon Day.  (Yes, that's a state recognized day.)

I was asked to help out at the Citizens Climate Lobby table and when I arrived, there was already a
large crowd walking around and lining up for BBQ salmon.  (Salmon was free, beer you had to pay for.)


I also brought along my voter registration forms.  I figured this would be a good place to register folks.  The first person I asked had moved up from California and hadn't registered here yet.  Bingo.  He had an Alaska drivers license.   But then, everyone else I asked was already registered, many in other states or countries.  Then folks told me they thought everyone was registered because of the automatic voter registration when you apply for the Alaska Permanent Fund check.  I'd forgotten about that.  Here's what the Permanent Fund Website says:

"On November 8, 2016, Alaska voters approved Ballot Measure 1 (15PFVR) which will automatically register eligible individuals to vote when they apply for a Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD), unless they opt-out. The Division of Elections webpage has more information.
A mailer from the Division of Elections will be sent to Alaskans who applied for their PFD from March 1, 2017 (effective date) to March 31, 2017 and whose address on their PFD application is different than their voter record address, or to applicants who are not currently registered to vote."

So Alaska has taken a different direction from a lot of other states that are trying to purge folks from the voting lists.  The only eligible unregistered voters are those who are turning 18 since the last PFD check and people who just moved to Alaska and haven't filed for the PFD check yet.  And, of course, those few folks who don't apply for their checks.  I'm guessing any way.  I have to check Monday with the elections office.  I also want to know how to register homeless folks.  I'm sure they've figured this out, but address is a mandatory

There were lots of tables with information from various non-profit organizations like CCL.  There was music, and, of course, the salmon.

I did get one more voter registered - a 20 year old who was in line waiting for his salmon.  He said he wasn't interested in registering and when I asked why not, his answer didn't make sense to me, so I pushed a bit.  "It doesn't matter if I vote."  I responded that the people who didn't vote could have changed nearly every race if they had vote. He still wasn't interested in voting.  "If you register, you don't have to vote.  But if you don't register and you change your mind, you won't be able to vote."  His response was that he didn't have time to register.  Now I had him.  "You're waiting in line to get free salmon.  You can fill out the form before you get your salmon."  And he took the form and pen and filled it out.  The couple behind him, when he gave the form back to me, congratulated him on registering to vote.

I talked to a lot of folks, including one gentleman who had three expensive looking cameras wrapped around him.  He's a photographer from London who's in Alaska talking to people about their views on climate change.  He was amazed at some of the folks in Utqiaġvik (formally Barrow) who didn't believe that climate change was caused by humans.  When I asked more, he did say they worked for or had worked in the oil industry.  The photographer, Laurence Ellis, said this was for Document Journal.  He sounded like someone who was worth noting here.  At the very least, he will be interpreting his version of Alaska to the world.   I only wish I'd worked a little harder when i took his picture with my low end Canon Powershot.


Toward the end of the event, everyone was invited for a giant photo of the event.  I'd guess most people had already left.  But there was still a good crowd.

[UPDATE August 13, 2018:  Coincidentally, the next post turned out to be about standing for salmon literally.]

"The Plural of Anecdote Is Not Data" Commission Member Dunlap's Problems With Presidential Advisory Commission on Elections

The Presidential Advisory Commission on Elections was controversial before it began   Today one of the Democrats on the commission (though they were shut out from viewing documents and meetings) published a letter he wrote to the defunct committee's chair and to the President.  First come experts from a news report, then below is the letter itself.


From the Bangor Daily News :  

PORTLAND, Maine — The now-disbanded voting integrity commission launched by the Trump administration uncovered no evidence to support claims of widespread voter fraud, according to an analysis of administration documents released Friday.
In a letter to Vice President Mike Pence and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who are both Republicans and led the commission, Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap said the documents show there was a “pre-ordained outcome” and that drafts of a commission report included a section on evidence of voter fraud that was “glaringly empty.”
“It’s calling into the darkness, looking for voter fraud,” Dunlap, a Democrat, told The Associated Press. “There’s no real evidence of it anywhere.”

Kris Kobach disagreed.

“It appears that Secretary Dunlap is willfully blind to the voter fraud in front of his nose,” Kobach said in a statement released by his spokesman.
Kobach said there have been more than 1,000 convictions for voter fraud since 2000, and that the commission presented 8,400 instances of double voting in the 2016 election in 20 states.
“Had the commission done the same analysis of all 50 states, the number would have been exponentially higher,” Kobach said. 

But Dunlap says:

In response, Dunlap said those figures were never brought before the commission, and that Kobach hasn’t presented any evidence for his claims of double voting. He said the commission was presented with a report claiming over 1,000 convictions for various forms of voter misconduct since 1948.
“The plural of anecdote is not data,” Dunlap said in his Friday letter to the shuttered commission’s leaders. 

But here's Dunlap's complete letter to Kobach and Trump outlining his complaints.  He doesn't mince words.

Matthew Dunlap Presidential Advisory Committee on Elections (PACEI) Docs Findings Letter - by Steve on Scribd

You can get 29 additional documents Dunlap received at the Maine Secretary of State website.

President Ends His Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

From the White House:

Executive Order on the Termination of Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity

Issued on: January 3, 2018

This was called from the start by some, "the Advisory Commission on Election Fraud" and "on Voter Suppression" by others.

It was suspect from the beginning with Vice President Pence as chair and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach serving as vice-chair. The ACLU has four suits against Kobach claiming in one 

"“Secretary Kobach continues to seek ways to confuse and obstruct voters in Kansas. His flagrant disregard of the court’s findings means that Kansans still face unnecessary barriers to voting. We’re asking the court to immediately block the temporary regulation and to ultimately end this dual system once and for all,” said Sophia Lakin, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project."

The Democratic Secretary of State of Maine, a member of the commission, was suing the commission.  Governing reports:

The suit alleges that the commission's chairman, Vice President Mike Pence, and vice chairman, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, are in violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which prohibits the body from excluding commissioners from deliberations and information. The Executive Office of the President is also a named defendant, as the office is staffing the commission and maintaining its records. 

"Since the Sept. 12 meeting, I have received no correspondence from the commission other than to acknowledge receipt of my information request" of October 17, Dunlap said in a prepared statement. "Clearly, there is information about this commission being created and discussed, but I have no access to that information and it has not been provided upon request."

One of the commission's staffers was arrested for having child porn on his phone.

There were lots of reasons to not even create this commission in the first place.  Objective studies of voter fraud said this Republican talking point was a non-issue at best, an attempt at voter suppression at worst.

Jennifer Ruben wrote at the Washington Post back in September  that the Commission should be shut down.

But it's not like Trump administration to back down and quit because its critics tell it to.  Was it the likelihood of losing the suits?  Maybe.

I'm guessing that the Republicans wanted to have a federal commission that could make their recommendations for voter suppression under the guise of preventing voter fraud.  But it was getting too difficult.  Locking out the Democrats resulted in the lawsuit which they were likely to lose.

And since they couldn't conduct their business privately as a federal commission, they've decided to go back to secret meetings and scheming to do their dirty business of finding ways to keep Democrats from voting.

And how much did all this cost the taxpayer?  I can't find anything on that.