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.

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."