Monthly Archives: June 2022

Missouri Senate Primary 2022

We are about five weeks out from the August 2 primary in Missouri.  With Roy Blunt deciding that it is time to move on, there are multiple candidates in both party’s primary.  While Missouri has been gradually moving to the right, there is a chance that Democrats could pull out a win, but a lot depends on what happens on August 2.

To some degree, the Republican primary in Missouri is an echo of what we have seen in Ohio and Pennsylvania.  With a large number of candidates and no clear favorite, we are looking at the potential for a very close race which in turn means that Donald Trump could very easily impact the result by putting his thumb on the scale (as opposed to the recent primary in Alabama where Trump had little noticeable impact on the race when he first endorsed Mo Brooks, less impact when he rescinded that endorsement, and no impact when he decided to endorse Kate Britt at the last second to get a cheap win for his endorsement scorecard).

There are twenty-one people running for the Republican nomination.  For the purposes of the Trump endorsement race, there are three groups of candidates:  the field, the chase pack, and the lead pack.  The field consists of fifteen candidates with no state-wide name recognition and no significant resources.  Each of these candidates would be lucky to get 2-3% of the vote.  But each vote for the field is a vote that is not going to the top six candidates. Continue Reading...

Posted in General Election Forecast, Senate | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Missouri Senate Primary 2022

The Supreme Court — Faux Originalism and the Reactionary Ascendency

This is a hard week to post about.  There were three opinion days this week.  And each one featured a new decision that ripped at the fabric of modern society and featured a rewriting of history in the service of originalism to allow the reactionary members of the court to push through an agenda that lacks electoral support based on a misreading of the Constitution.

Tuesday started off the week with Carson vs. Makinthe Maine school voucher case.   Traditionally, there have been two prongs to the Free Exercise Clause — one prong involves the power to follow one’s religious beliefs without penalty and the other prong involves discrimination based on religion.  Posed against the Free Exercise Clause is the Establishment Clause which forbids the government from establishing an official religion or religions.  Traditionally, the big fights have been in the “no penalty” prong.

On the penalizing religion prong, the battle has always been the reasonableness of the proposed accommodations measured against the significance of the government interest.  And in the late 1980s, after one of the low points of religious freedom in which Justice Scalia basically limited this prong to the right to have beliefs without penalty for those beliefs (but no right to act on those beliefs), Congress overreacted by enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which went to the other extreme.  The RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause are on the verge of being interpreted as allowing people to claim religious exemptions from civil rights laws.  And we are likely to see another case in this prong later this week allowing a coach at a public school to pray publicly while on the job at a school function. Continue Reading...

Posted in Civil Rights, Judicial | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on The Supreme Court — Faux Originalism and the Reactionary Ascendency

Supreme Court Update

The last week was both busy and quiet on the Supreme Court front.  The Supreme Court handed down eleven decisions reducing the number of pending cases to eighteen with two weeks to go.  Only two of the cases were medium big, and the really big cases will be decided in the last two weeks.  With the Juneteenth holiday, the Supreme Court will be releasing opinions tomorrow (Tuesday) and Thursday.  For the last week of June, Monday will be an opinion day.  Depending on how many opinions are left after June 27, there will probably be additional opinions on June 29 and, maybe, June 30.  Expect Dodds and New York State Rifle to come the week of June 27.

This week, the two big decisions were in American Hospital Association v. Becerra and Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco.  Both of these are bigger for what they did not say than for what they actually held.

American Hospital Association involves the rules for hospital reimbursements for Medicare.  For years, conservatives have been challenging a judge-made rule (Chevron deference) which dictates that courts should uphold reasonable rules implemented by administrative agencies based on a reasonable interpretation of statutes.  So far, the U.S. Supreme Court has not officially overruled Chevron.  Instead, they are whittling it away through decisions like American Hospital Association.  The courts are doing this by narrowing the field of what is a reasonable interpretation of statutes. Continue Reading...

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

Lessons From the January 6 Committee

Looking at the highlights from the January 6 Commitee hearing this week, there were two key takeaways from this week hearings — both related to the vote counting process.

First, as anybody who has been involved with campaign at any level knows, votes are not instantly reported at the same time.  Instead, election results roll in as precincts turn in their results and counties count absentee and “federal” ballots (ballots case by military and overseas voters that just cover federal and statewide elections).   More importantly, results by precinct and by county are not random — either in timing or in the vote counts.  There is a regular patten by which results are reported and an expected result by precinct and county.

To use my home county for an example, it is a small county that typically has between 12,000 and 15,000 votes.  While the exact number of precincts has changed, it has always been between 15 and 20 precincts.  In the years that I have lived, there have been changes.  We have gone from a central counting process in which the ballot boxes in each precinct were just ballot boxes and the counting machine was in the courthouse to a precinct counting process in which the ballot boxes are also counting machines and the central counting part of the process is simply downloading the results from each precinct and adding the results together.  This change has speeded up the process (as the county election authority no longer has to run 15,000 ballots through the counting machine and reset the machine for each precinct) and we typically have the full results by 8:30 p.m. (ninety minutes after the polls close) rather than 11:00 p.m.  Additionally, the results are posted on-line as soon as the printout of a precinct’s result can be scanned and uploaded thereby eliminating the need to sit around the courthouse waiting for a copy of the printouts.  But what hasn’t changed is that there is a rough sequence in which the precincts are reported.  In most elections, the first precincts to report are the smaller towns close to the county seat (in the north central part of the county).  Those precincts get to the courthouse first because they are only 5-10 minutes away from the courthouse, and — given their small size — they tend to have few people in line at 7 p.m. and can quickly get to the process of closing the precinct and packing up the ballots and counting device to take to the courthouse.  On the other hand, the five large precincts in the southeast and southwest of the courthouse tend to be the last ones to get to the courthouse as they have the furthest to go and tend to have lines at 7 p.m. (and thus take longer to close as the closing process does not begin until the last person has voted).  In short, while the exact sequence may change some from election to election (as the exact time when the election judges get to the courthouse depends on how long the lines are). Continue Reading...

Posted in 2020 General Election, Elections, House of Representatives | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Lessons From the January 6 Committee

Supreme Court — End of Term Preview 2022

Normally, by this time of the year, the Supreme Court term is coming into focus.  With three weeks to go, typically, there is one or two cases left from the Fall.   While there are always question marks, it is possible to try to figure out results in the key case by who is in the running for getting the remaining opinions from a month.

This year is different.  There are still 29 opinions outstanding out of 62 cases.  While there have been years with more opinions outstanding heading into the last three weeks, those years were back when the Supreme Court was hearing a lot more cases per year.

To date, almost all of the opinions have been in cases that (other than the parties) mostly interested those practicing in that field.  The biggest attention getting case was the decision reinstating (at least for now) the death penalty against the surviving Boston Marathon bomber.  The legally biggest case of the year so far also came from Boston in a Free Exercise/Free Speech case involving Boston’s refusal to let a Christian group use one of the city’s flagpoles in connection with an event even though it routinely gave such permission to nonreligious groups.  That decision may be an indicator of the likely result in some of the remaining cases, but it was merely a continuation of the recent trend in Free Exercise cases. Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Supreme Court — End of Term Preview 2022

Mythbuster 101

The Republican Party likes its myths.  Tell a nice anecdotal story (which doesn’t even have to be true), pretend that it expresses a universal truth, and watch it take root in the base so that there is no pressure to fix what is really broken.

Myth #1 — Gun control rules in Democratic cities have not prevented those cities from having high homicide rates.  This one is less myth than simple distortion.  First, most larger cities have Democratic mayors.  So it’s hard to find Republican-controlled cities for comparison.  Second, it’s universally true (not just an American fact) that increased population (and increased population density) means more crime.  When you look at crime rates and violent crime rates, the cities with gun control actually fare relatively well.  Third, in the U,S, legal system, it is very easy to evade city restrictions.  You just need to travel to the suburbs  to get your gun.  And the open borders mean that there is no check at the city line to prevent the importation of guns into the  city.  Lastly, the penalties for violating a city ordinance are relatively minor.  In short, local gun control ordinances appear to have some effect, but such ordinances are no substitute for federal legislation.

Of course, passing anything through Congress is hard.  One proposal that I have seen that might bear some fruit is the concept of breaking down the current proposals into separate bills.  When you have a complex bill, it is easy for the Members from the Party of GnOP to say they are voting no based on one provision.  If you make them vote on each proposal separately, they will have to take a stand on each proposal rather than relying on the most controversial provision to justify killing the bill.  While the Democrats probably have the votes in the House to pass the full program, they don’t have the votes in the Senate.  Making forty-one Republicans have to vote against each of twenty or thirty proposals that have the support of 70% of the American voters might just move the needle in some swing states and districts. Continue Reading...

Posted in Politics | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Mythbuster 101