New Hampshire Primary

Today is round two for the Republicans with the New Hampshire Primary.  Because primary dates are set by state law, there will also be a non-binding primary (a/k/a “beauty contest”) on the Democratic side (more on that below).

While there will be other candidates on the ballot, there are only two major candidates on the Republican side — Donald Trump and Nikki Haley.  Given that New Hampshire has a semi-open primary in which independents can vote in either party’s primary, it is believed that there will be a significant number of “moderates” who opt to vote in the Republican primary.  If there is a chance for Nikki Haley to win nationally, she needs a win in New Hampshire.  Given Trump’s many issues (legal, physical, mental), the Republicans really do not need the chaos that would ensue if Trump “wins” the nomination but has to withdraw before the convention.  (And while it is hard to project what the Supreme Court intends to do, it is easier for them to do the legally correct thing if Trump is not the presumptive Republican nominee.)  New Hampshire is a proportional state, so unless Haley or Trump blows the other out of the water what really matters here is the perception that Haley can compete and beat Trump than the actual delegate count.)

On the Democratic side, the timing of the New Hampshire primary (set by state law) violates the national delegate selection rules.  As a result, the primary is a non-binding primary.  Because the New Hampshire Democratic Party has decided to resist the national rules and support the unenforceable state law mandating that other states let New Hampshire goes first, New Hampshire has had its delegate total reduced to ten delegates.  More importantly, we do not yet have an approved plan for how those delegates will be chosen. Continue Reading...

Posted in Joe Biden, NH Primary, Primary and Caucus Results, Primary Elections | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on New Hampshire Primary

DNC Hosts Media Walkthrough for 2024 Democratic Convention

Unfortunately, most of the good stuff was off-the-record. From Axios:

Democratic National Convention organizers hosted a media walkthrough Thursday at the United Center for national, local and international news outlets, giving a peek at what to expect this summer. Continue Reading...

Posted in Chicago | Tagged | Comments Off on DNC Hosts Media Walkthrough for 2024 Democratic Convention

We have a convention logo

Today is also the first media walkthrough of the United Center for the 2024 Democratic Convention. We’ll have details later.

Posted in 2024 Convention, Chicago | Tagged | Comments Off on We have a convention logo

DNCC Announces McCormick Place Hotels to serve as Convention Headquarters

The Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) announced that the Marriott Marquis Chicago and Hyatt Regency at McCormick Place, both connected to McCormick convention center, will serve as the official headquarter hotels for the 2024 Democratic National Convention in Chicago held August 19-22. The headquarter hotels are a designated base of operations for staff from the DNCC, Democratic National Committee, and Biden for President campaign, as well as media organizations and key leaders from coalition groups.

“We are proud to partner with these key hotels and the union labor that powers them to make the McCormick Place our home base for convention week,” said DNCC Executive Director Alex Hornbrook. “We are confident each of these hotels will offer the best service, professionalism, and home to our guests during such an important week where Democrats across the country come together, tell our story to the American people, and renominate President Biden and Vice President Harris.”

Continue Reading...

Posted in Chicago, Hotels | Tagged | Comments Off on DNCC Announces McCormick Place Hotels to serve as Convention Headquarters

Iowa Caucuses 2024

The 2024 presidential primaries officially kicks off on Monday night in the frigid cold of Iowa.

Traditionally, the Iowa Caucuses have three major components.  First, they are used to create the local organization of the political parties as caucus attendees elect the precinct’s representatives to the county committee.  Second, they are used to choose the delegates to the county convention (which in turn will choose the congressional district/state convention delegates who will elect the national convention delegates).  Third, a preference vote is taken which is used to allocate national convention delegates.

Thanks in part to Iowa’s move to the right and past problems with counting and report the preference vote, the national Democratic Party has rescinded its permission for Iowa to conduct a pre-March preference vote.  Unlike their counterparts in New Hampshire, Iowa Democrats have worked with the national party (in the hopes that in the future they might get a pre-March spot back).  But it is helpful to have both parties hold their precinct caucuses on the same date and holding a later event would create timing issues.  So the Democrats will use their caucuses for the purposes of electing party officials and the delegates who will attend the county conventions.  But to comply with national party rules, there will be no presidential preference vote on Monday.  Instead, there will be a party-run primary that will conclude in March. Continue Reading...

Posted in Iowa Caucuses, Primary Elections | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Iowa Caucuses 2024

The Oral Argument in United States vs. Donald J. Trump (a/k/a The Insurrectionist)

Today, at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hold oral arguments on Donald Trump’s appeal of the decision that he is not immune from criminal prosecution for the events of January 6.  Apparently, the accused intends to personally attend this argument.  (For the reasons discussed below, his attorneys are likely unhappy with the decision and Trump may throw a temper tantrum either during or after the argument.)  For the millions who are unable to make it to the federal courthouse, the D.C. Circuit will be livestreaming the audio of the argument.  And the recording will posted on the court’s website by the close of business today.

I am not going to spend time on the merits of the case because the merits are really one-sided.  The trial judge in this case is respected by her peers and her order thoroughly demonstrates why Trump’s claim of immunity has no factual or legal merit.  It will be affirmed.  Instead, this post is intended to help readers understand what will be happening.

The first thing to understand is that oral argument is the last part of the case.  Even at the state level, it is expected that the judges will have read the written arguments (formally known as briefs of the party).  If the judges have the time, they may also have looked at the relevant portions of the trial court records to answer any factual questions that they may have about the proceeding.  They may also have looked at the key cases cited by the parties to understand what those cases actually say (instead of how the attorneys have tried to spin them).  In short, the judges have almost certainly formed an opinion about the issues in the case, and oral argument is a last chance for the parties to correct any misimpressions that they judges may have. Continue Reading...

Posted in Donald Trump, Judicial | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The Oral Argument in United States vs. Donald J. Trump (a/k/a The Insurrectionist)

The Trump Ballot Case and the Precedents of Nat Turner and John Brown

On Friday, the United Staes Supreme Court decided to grant President Trump’s Petition for Certiorari in Trump vs. Anderson.  However, it took no action on the companion Petition for Certiorari filed by the Colorado Republican Party in Colorado State Republican Central Committee v. Anderson.  Before turning to the issues raised in this case, there are two things to note about the Supreme Court order granting review and the petitions filed.

First, in granting Trump’s petition, the Supreme Court implicitly recognized the necessity to resolve this issue quickly.  The briefs of Trump and his enablers in the Republican Party (and related organizations) are due on January 18, less than two weeks after the order granting review (as opposed to the usual 45 days).  The briefs of Trump’s challengers and the Colorado election official who are in the middle of this case are due thirteen days later on January 31 (along with any outside brief from individuals who want to support Democracy) with any reply briefs due five days later on February 5.  This contrast to the normal deadlines of 45 days for petitioner’s brief with respondent’s brief due 30 days later and the reply brief an additional 35 days later. Additionally, the case will be argued on February 8 which is a special setting in the middle of what would otherwise have been the Supreme Court’s winter break.

Second, the Supreme Court did not rewrite Trump’s question presented.  Typically, the question prsented in a petition for certiorari is narrowly focused on one legal issue.  For example, did the lower court err in finding that the potential for the metabolizing of blood alcohol content is an automatic exigent circumstance permitting law enforcement officers to conduct a warrantless blood draw?  If there are multiple issues in a case, the petition will present multiple questions on which the Supreme Court can pick and choose which issues will be considered at the time that the petition is granted.  For example, the Colorado Republican Party presented three issues:  1) does Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the President; 2) is Section 3 self-executing; and 3) does disqualifying a candidate violate the First Amendment rights of political parties.  By contrast, the Trump Petition, after noting the ruling (that his actions and the office of President fell within the restrictions of Section) simply asks whether the Colorado Supreme Court erred by excluding him from the ballot.  In other words, unlike the usual question which identifies a specific legal error in the ruling, the Supreme Court appears to be allowing the consideration of any potential theory on why the Colorado Supreme Court erred. Continue Reading...

Posted in 2024 Convention, Donald Trump, Elections, GOP, Judicial, Republicans, RNC | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Trump Ballot Case and the Precedents of Nat Turner and John Brown

Welcome to 2024 – Convention Updates

  • Security planning is ongoing for the GOP Convention in Milwaukee
  • Click here to sign up to volunteer for the Democratic Convention in Chicago
  • GOP delegates may have to take an 80 minute bus ride from (blue) Madison to Milwaukee, in order to avoid a shorter trip from (blue) Illinois.  Got it?

Posted in 2024 Convention | Tagged , | Comments Off on Welcome to 2024 – Convention Updates

RNC: Convention is about “Economic Development”, not Trump

This is the funniest thing I’ve seen in a long time.  The Host Committee for the 2024 Republican Convention is telling donors that “the convention is about economic development and not who the nominee will be”:

Republican organizers are turning to donors — including some Democrats — to fund their 2024 convention, even if they don’t like former President Donald Trump.

Reince Priebus, chair of the Milwaukee 2024 Host Committee, acknowledged in an exclusive interview with POLITICO that the pitch requires some finesse. Continue Reading...

Posted in 2024 Convention, GOP | Tagged | Comments Off on RNC: Convention is about “Economic Development”, not Trump

Supreme Court Update

Before departing for the holidays, the Supreme Court had a couple of “gifts” of merits review in a couple of high profile cases with the possibility of a third before New Year’s.

Starting at the top of the list is the dubious case brought by Mrs. Senator Josh Hawley.  (Normally, the fact that a relative of a politician is involved in a case would not be noteworthy but whne you put yourself out as a power couple and you file the case in a location which assures that it will be heard by a judge who donated to the relative’s campaign and the relative played a large role in getting that judge appointed to the bench, this clearly qualifies as a team effort for which both share the blame.)  In this case, plaintiffs are a group of doctors who claim that they have standing to challenge the FDA’s decisions on approving Mifepristone because at some point they may be forced to provide treatment for a patient who took Mifepristone and had complications.  These political doctors sought to both invalidate recent changes to the guidance that the FDA gives on Mifepristone and its original approval.  Having filed the case in a location that assured them that the case would be heard by a judge who would twist the law and the facts to rule in their favor, they succeeded at the trial court on both parts of their case.  The FDA and the drug manufacture appealed this rubber stamp decision to the Fifth Circuit.  Even the Fifth Circuit could not twist the law in a manner that would allow them to affirm the decision as it relates to the original approval of Mifepristone, but they did find flaws in the administrative process which allowed them to affirm the decision with regards to the more recent changes approving a broader use for Mifepristone.  Everybody then sought U.S. Supreme Court review.  Several months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the Fifth Circuit’s ruling.  This past week, the Supreme Court granted the review sought by the FDA and the drug manufacturer, but denied the review sought by the medical hacks.

While this Supreme Court having any case related to abortion is always a matter of concern, the decision to take the FDA’s appeal and reject the appeal by the medical hacks is the best result possible for the pro-choice community.  And, the main issue in the case is the FDA procedures for approving medications and expanding “on label” uses after initial approval.  As such, the impact of a ruling against the FDA in this case would have a major negative impact on pharmaceutical companies.  As such, it is possible that six of the justices might put the abortion aspects of this case to the side and simply focus on it as an administrative procedure case.   If not, there is always the November elections. Continue Reading...

Posted in Donald Trump, Judicial | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Supreme Court Update