Tag: election

Vote for Democracy ’24 #8

34 felony convictions, 54 counts waiting for trial dates.

(Photo by Lucas Sankey on Unsplash)

Late afternoon yesterday, May 30, 2024, a former president of the United States, Donald Trump, was found guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in a case brought by the state of New York by the elected district attorney of New York County, Alvin Bragg, after a grand jury of citizens voted to bring the charges.

This is the first time a US president has been charged with felonies and found guilty. President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon before any charges could be brought.

The State of New York has jurisdiction to bring the charges because the business records in question were in the state. Falsification of business records is usually a misdemeanor but was raised to a felony here because it was being done with the intent to commit another crime, in this case, violation of New York State election law. This case relates to the 2016 election, when Donald Trump authorized paying a woman to keep her from going to the press with a story about a sexual encounter that would have been potentially damaging to his campaign in the final weeks, shortly after the release of the Access Hollywood tape, in which Donald Trump made light of his habit of sexually assaulting women. The business records were falsified in a scheme to conceal the payment.

The prosecution spent several weeks presenting documents and other evidence and testimony from twenty witnesses. Trump’s defense was much briefer, only two witnesses. The jury deliberated for about nine and a half hours over two days and returned a guilty verdict on all 34 counts.

This is the way the criminal justice system should work in the United States. It’s not the elected or appointed officials who decide the case. It’s a jury of one’s peers. Jurors are sworn to consider only the evidence presented and the law in reaching their verdict. While Trump’s followers made it seem that a New York jury would be made exclusively of Democrats with a grudge against him, we know that the jurors had a range of news sources, including one who got their news from Trump’s social media site, Truth Social. All the jurors swore, though, to set aside any preconceived notions and deliberate together to reach a unanimous verdict.

Sentencing is set for July 11. The sentence will be decided by the presiding judge, Juan Merchan. It could include up to four years in prison but could be probation, instead. After sentencing, there will likely be an appeal. The Republican party convention, which is expected to nominate Trump as their presidential choice for the November election, begins July 15.

Meanwhile, Trump is awaiting trial on 54 more felonies in three cases, a State of Georgia election interference conspiracy case, a federal case of mishandling sensitive presidential documents in Florida, and the federal case around the January 6 attack on the US Capitol in Washington, DC.

I will not vote for a convicted felon who has not served their sentence and taken responsibility for their actions.

I hope that most Americans also hold that view.

Many prominent Republicans are attacking the judicial system rather than affirming the verdict of twelve sworn jurors in New York. I also will not vote for a candidate for any office that does not respect the rule of law. Public officials are sworn to uphold and defend our Constitution and laws. The transcript of the NY trial is available and demonstrates that the law was being followed and applied. For an elected official to attack the US justice system as being worse than those in countries like Cuba is disqualifying for me as a voter.

Applying the law “without fear or favor” is a hallmark of the United States judicial system. All voters should pay attention to the views of candidates toward the rule of law when deciding for whom to vote.

Vote for Democracy #7

(Photo by Lucas Sankey on Unsplash)

Over the last several decades, it’s become customary to ask the electorate in the run-up to presidential elections if they were better off four years ago.

I can safely say that our family is much better off now than four years ago.

During Trump’s last year in office, we spent a lot of time in either complete COVID isolation or significant restrictions. There were shortages of many consumer goods. While we were fortunate that B’s job could be done remotely, our finances had been negatively impacted by the Trump/Republican tax cuts, which saved wealthy individuals and corporations millions of dollars but raised federal income taxes for those of us who live in states with higher property and state income taxes by restricting our ability to itemize. (Republican Claudia Tenney was our representative at the time and put out an illustration of how much a family with three children under 14 would save in federal income tax, ignoring that the vast majority of her constituents didn’t fit that model and certainly a household like ours, older couple with no dependents, had a significant tax increase, not a cut.) Our retirement savings took a hit as both stocks and bonds were suffering from the disruption of the world economy due to the pandemic.

While we were fortunate to have a stable home and employment, 2020 was generally a scary time. Many in our community had job losses and health problems, including serious COVID cases. Too many people suffered lasting health consequences or death from the pandemic. While our state government did their best to deal with those early pandemic months, President Trump was a hindrance rather than a help in safeguarding our well-being.

In this final year of President Biden’s first term, things are much better for our family. With federal support for vaccines and treatments and with our own precautions, we have only had one relatively mild COVID case in our household. While inflation has raised some of our household costs, wages have gone up, too. We have appreciated higher interest rates on our savings and the record levels of the stock market have helped our retirement savings to recover and grow. The current unemployment rate in Broome County NY, where I live, is 4.5%, slightly higher than the national average of 3.9%. By contrast, in April 2020, our county set its record high unemployment rate at 15.2%.

While I know there are individuals who were better off four years ago, the majority of people are healthier and in a more stable situation than they were in 2020.

Still, many people feel differently. Perhaps, the trauma of the early part of the pandemic caused them to forget the fear, illness, job losses, shortages, and isolation we experienced. Perhaps, their personal income wasn’t able to compensate for inflation. (For the record, the supply chain problems that caused some of the inflation surge have resolved but the extra profit-taking by companies has not, especially with products that have only a handful of suppliers. The blame for price gouging should fall on greedy corporations, not on the administration.) Perhaps, some people are victims of fear-mongering or misinformation about the economy and public policy.

Admittedly, as I decide which candidates to support, I prefer to look at the broader picture of my local community and the country rather than the small picture of my household. In my area, there are lots of infrastructure improvements underway, especially with our roads. The local hospital just opened a new building. There is lots of government and private support for new and expanding business because we are a nationally recognized center for battery technology. Old factory buildings that were sitting vacant for decades are being renovated for housing and business use. Our regional airport is undergoing enhancements.

Many other counties around the country have similar stories of positive change.

I hope that voters will look honestly at their own past and present when evaluating the economic and health aspects of deciding among candidates. Don’t let other people or the media tell you what you should think. It’s also helpful to look at how government helped or hindered the economy or public health. The United States economy, including employment and inflation, has recovered much more quickly from the shock of the pandemic than other countries with advanced economies. The actions of the Biden administration are a factor in this economic strength.

An example of how public sentiment diverges from legislation and statistics is this poll from late April which finds that, when asked whether Biden or Trump did “more to promote infrastructure and job creation,” the results were 40% Biden, 37% Trump, 12% both equally, 12% don’t know. The fact is that no major infrastructure bills passed during the Trump administration while the Biden administration was heavily involved in crafting the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This law along with the American Rescue Plan, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act have contributed to 15 million jobs added to the US economy under President Biden while the Trump presidency saw a loss of 2.9 million jobs. That the poll opinions deviate so dramatically from the legislative record and statistics suggests that other factors are at play, such as dis/misinformation, taking personal experience as universal, fear, and partisanship. Robert Reich had an interesting piece on his Substack yesterday exploring some of the facts, possible reasons they aren’t breaking through with the public, and possible ways to address the disparity.

When I look at this question of how my family, community, state, and country are doing during the Biden presidency and contrast it with the Trump presidency, it’s clear that Biden has the better record and plans for the future. I will vote for Biden and for Congressional candidates who will support Biden’s agenda.

I hope that all voters will evaluate the facts on the economy as they make decisions about voting.

Vote for Democracy #5

(Photo by Lucas Sankey on Unsplash)

One of the most disturbing aspects of Donald Trump and many Republicans is their embrace of violence, both as a threat and as a weapon.

Trump has used violent language throughout his political career, encouraging people to beat up protesters at his rallies, ordering or condoning violence against peaceful protesters, and, most notoriously, encouraging and cheering the violent insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

He has also been credibly accused of sexual violence and abuse by many women and was found liable in the E. Jean Carroll case.

Most often, though, Trump doesn’t physically participate himself, but other people follow his directions, such as when he told the Proud Boys in a presidential debate to “stand back and stand by” and then they showed up in force on Jan. 6. A number of them were criminally charged and convicted, but Trump now calls them “hostages” or “political prisoners” and seems poised to pardon them if he is elected.

Trump is promising to send in federal troops to US cities without being asked for assistance by the mayors or governors who have jurisdiction. He would apparently do this by invoking the Insurrection Act, perhaps even at the start of his term and on a national basis rather than targeted against a specific, violent event. A blanket application of the Insurrection Act would end the rights to free speech, freedom of assembly, and infringe the right to petition the government, all of which are included in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Trump is also threatening arrest of his perceived enemies, including Joe Biden and all the House members who were part of the January 6th study committee. There is no evidence of criminality against any of them, but Trump has called multiple times for vengeance because of the charges against him, for which there is ample evidence. (Links to the indictments and congressional and judicial reports are readily available online.)

Followers of Donald Trump have committed acts of violence, which he then turns into jokes rather than condemning. After Paul Pelosi, spouse of then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, was brutally attacked by an assailant in his home, Trump joked about it for months afterward, which is cruel and encourages others to commit even more violence on Trump’s behalf.

All of this is heightening the threat of political violence, particularly among Republicans. In a recent poll, 28% of Republicans agreed that “Americans have to resort to violence to get the country back on track.” (Independents were 18%; Democrats, 12%.) With Republican households having higher levels of gun ownership than other households, it is likely that a higher proportion of people holding this viewpoint have access to firearms. It has also been Republicans in Congress and judges appointed by Republicans who have blocked common sense gun safety measures. The cycle of violence perpetuates.

Last night, it was my privilege to hear John Dear speak on nonviolence. He was speaking about his new book, The Gospel of Peace: A Commentary on Matthew, Mark, and Luke from the Perspective of Nonviolence. He spoke movingly about Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Ghandi and their commitment to living the nonviolent life that Jesus did. He told us that Ghandi, a Hindu, read from the Sermon on the Mount, found in the gospel of Matthew, chapters five through seven, every day for decades. Even faced with the prospect of a violent death, King and Ghandi continued their commitment to nonviolence as Jesus did.

Father Dear reminded us that anger and fear are the underpinnings of violence. I have long known that fear-mongering is part of the lead-up to violent rhetoric from Trump and other Republicans, even when the underlying statements are untrue. For example, there is a lot of fear-mongering over crime. People think that crime rates are rising and are so afraid that they are willing to elect a strongman who promises to crack down violently on perceived enemies, which these days for Republicans seems to include immigrants, most people of color, Democrats, and people who identify as anything other than straight male/female.

When someone expresses a belief to me that is counterfactual, I’ll try to offer the facts if I can but I also try to address the fear that is underlying the issue and making them ready to justify violence to address it. If someone insults me or my intelligence, I don’t respond in kind but will explain my thoughts in a clear, honest way.

Back in the days of the fight against hydrofracking in New York, I often wrote comments on press articles and would be attacked by a small group of local drilling proponents who tended to hurl insults. I admit that it would scare me but I would always respond respectfully with facts to back up my opinion. Eventually, most of the press outlets stopped allowing comments. On my blog, I welcome respectful comments and engage with those who disagree with me, while reserving my right to remove comments that are disrespectful, violent, or likely to promote misinformation. Fortunately, this happens very rarely.

As we continue to prepare for the elections, listen to what the candidates are saying and reject those who espouses violence and stoke unwarranted fear. Check for the facts behind campaign rhetoric to make sure you can separate truth from lies and manipulation.

Vote for democracy, which means equal protection for all. NO! to Trump and all those who promote personal and political violence.

Vote for Democracy ’24 #1

The first major event in preparation for the November ’24 United States presidential election took place last night. Former president Donald Trump won the Iowa caucuses, which will give him twenty delegates in the Republican party nominating convention in the summer. The other twenty delegates were awarded among DeSantis, Haley, and Ramaswamy; Ramaswamy left the race and endorsed Trump after the results were announced. (The Democrats decided to use mail-in ballots with results announced on March 5th.)

Although the nominating conventions won’t be until summer, it is widely expected that the November election will be a contest between current president, Democrat Joe Biden, and the former president, Republican Donald Trump, along with several independent/small party challengers.

That all sounds normal, but it isn’t. Donald Trump is under 91 felony indictments, some in federal cases and others in the states of Georgia and New York. A lot of evidence of his conduct is already publicly available, through government reports, recordings of speeches and phone calls, public comments, interviews, testimony at hearings and trials, and the media. There is also a lot of evidence of other Republicans cooperating with criminal activity or excusing it.

This election is widely considered to be a test of American democracy and values. I’ve struggled with what my role should be in standing up for our Constitution, democracy, and the common good. I do a lot of behind-the-scenes actions, such as writing to my elected officials and other government leaders and donating to political candidates, lobbying organizations, and charities that express my values. I frequently post my views on political topics here at Top of JC’s Mind. In this late November post, I made clear how dangerous I think a second Trump administration would be.

Although I’m painfully aware of my lack of reach, I want to add my voice to those fighting to preserve democracy and promote a national government that serves the common good rather than just the rich and powerful. So, I’ve decided to start an election year series here at Top of JC’s Mind, “Vote for Democracy ’24”, to provide more visibility to these posts.

I plan for these posts to be informative, factual, and reflective of my views. Readers are welcome to add their own views in comments but there are two requirements. Comments must be respectful; I do not allow vulgarity, name calling, or threats on my blog. (I remind those who use “freedom of speech” as an excuse to say whatever they want, wherever they want that the First Amendment is about the government’s actions regarding speech, not private individuals.) Comments must also be based in fact. I will not allow my platform to amplify lies, conspiracy theories, or hatefulness. I will exercise my right to delete comments that violate these requirements. I will respectfully reply to people across the range of opinions if they do follow these requirements. I hope not to do this, but I will block particular people, if needed, or close comments, if things get out of hand.

In November ’23, I wrote:

I know that I will not vote for Trump or any candidate for office at any level who supports him and his dangerous ideas. I will try to get the word out as best I can what those dangerous ideas are because some of the people who support Trump only hear his rhetoric and not the countervailing facts. For example, I encourage people to read the indictments against Trump, which lay out a lot of the underlying evidence. It’s also helpful to read the report of the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, as well as the Mueller Report. I also am supporting voices and organizations that are working to uphold democracy, the rule of law, and the common good.

I’m also worried and scared about violence, oppression, and losing my free, if flawed, country to demagogues, authoritarians, and fascists.

While I tend to pay attention to politics and public affairs all the time, many in the United States don’t notice what is going on with government except in presidential election years. I hope to encourage people to look at facts and evidence and draw their own conclusions rather than just following along with a candidate or party by inertia. I have never joined a political party and have a history of voting for candidates from multiple parties. I value my right as a citizen to vote and want others to retain their freedom to do so without obstacles or intimidation. I hope that others in the United States hold similar values regarding voting and that those in other countries stay informed and are able to freely participate in their own governance, although I realize that is an impossibility in some places.

2024 will be a momentous year in US history. Pay attention.
*****
Join us for Linda’s Just Jot It January! Find out more here: https://lindaghill.com/2024/01/16/daily-prompt-jusjojan-the-16th-2024/

plans for a second Trump administration

The Trump presidency featured a wide range of cruel and immoral speech and actions, including separation of children from their parents/guardians who came to the US seeking asylum in violation of national and international law, then not keeping the records to reunite them; suppressing scientific COVID information while spreading misinformation that contributed to higher rates of death and illness in the US than in other nations with comparable medical systems; speaking approvingly of authoritarian governments while criticizing our allies; bullying and firing government officials he deemed insufficiently loyal to him personally; and lying about his election loss, filing baseless legal challenges, and fomenting an insurrection.

It was a difficult, dark time for the country that laid bare and worsened existing divisions along racial/ethnic, religious, partisan, gender, and geographic lines. The Republican party has devolved into a party driven by grievance rather than one dedicated to governing for the common good of all the people.

Donald Trump is the front-runner for the Republican nomination for president in 2024 while under indictment on 91 federal and state felony counts. There is a planning operation underway for a second term, dubbed Project 2025, through a group of right-wing think tanks that seeks to politicize the Justice Department to seek revenge for political views, to deport millions of immigrants and refugees, to invoke the Insurrection Act to allow the US military to operate domestically, and to give the president additional powers that are not subject to checks by the courts or Congress. Trump’s rhetoric during the primary campaign includes him talking about seeking revenge and retribution against members of the Biden family and administration and against Republicans who don’t agree with him, including former members of his administration. He has raised the possibility of the death penalty for former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley. He is using overtly fascist language, such as calling his perceived enemies “vermin.” Trump’s verbal attacks, both via social media and in person at campaign rallies and interviews, seem to be increasing threats of violence against those Trump targets, such as Judge Engoron and his law clerk in the New York civil fraud trial.

What is most alarming is that many Republicans in government and many Trump supporters are openly embracing anti-democractic, unconstitutional, and illegal actions, such as doing away with birthright citizenship, limiting voting rights for people who disagree with them, using the military against the public, and outlawing abortion and birth control. I am appalled that there are those characterizing the United States as a white Christian nation, when it is, in reality, a pluralistic society made up of people of many races and ancestral heritages with a wide range of personal beliefs.

I know that I will not vote for Trump or any candidate for office at any level who supports him and his dangerous ideas. I will try to get the word out as best I can what those dangerous ideas are because some of the people who support Trump only hear his rhetoric and not the countervailing facts. For example, I encourage people to read the indictments against Trump, which lay out a lot of the underlying evidence. It’s also helpful to read the report of the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, as well as the Mueller Report. I also am supporting voices and organizations that are working to uphold democracy, the rule of law, and the common good.

I’m also worried and scared about violence, oppression, and losing my free, if flawed, country to demagogues, authoritarians, and fascists.

This post was difficult to write, in part because I am so disturbed about what has been happening and in part because I know I’m just a small voice in a very large and loud media environment. But I had to try. The future envisioned by Trump and his acolytes is just too terrifying to silently ignore.

Photo credit: Photo by Lucas Sankey on Unsplash

age and/or competence

Here in the United States, there is lots of discussion and public opinion polling around whether there should be an upper age limit for the presidency and other powerful federal positions, such as Supreme Court justices.

This is sometimes termed more simply as “Is Joe Biden too old to run for re-election?” Joe Biden is currently 80. Donald Trump, current leader in the race for the Republican party nomination, is 77.

Thirty-five is the Constitutional minimum age for the presidency, presumably to allow the president to have gained some measure of life experience and maturity to handle such a demanding position, but there is no upper limit specified.

I prefer that there not be one.

Rather, I want to be able to look at the personal qualities and policy positions of the candidate. Their physical and mental health status is part of that analysis.

Age is not necessarily a good indicator of health status or fitness. Joe Biden, as evidenced by his physical examination results from February, 2023, does not have major medical issues. His gait is stiff due to some arthritis. He works out on a regular basis. He has been able to keep up a rigorous daily schedule, including frequent travel, both domestically and internationally.

The president has a stutter; sometimes, his word pacing and choice are efforts to compensate. That we seldom hear him stutter is a testament to the work he has done over the years to address this issue. There is no evidence of cognitive impairment.

Of course, not all recent presidents have been as extensive in reporting their physical exam results. Donald Trump’s results were not reported in detail.

In the more distant past, the physical condition of the president was often kept private. For example, the public did not know the extent of damage caused by Woodrow Wilson’s 1919 stroke. Franklin Roosevelt’s post-polio condition was kept out of the public eye as much as possible. Not even Harry Truman as vice-president knew how ill FDR was with cardiovascular disease before his death in 1945 at age 63.

My mother, who had experience with family members dealing with cognitive decline, observed that Ronald Reagan’s behavior and speech while he was president reminded her of someone who was developing dementia. She was not surprised when his diagnosis with Alzheimer’s disease was made public five years after he left the presidency. There was a lot of debate about when Reagan’s cognitive decline began and there is no definitive determination, although some analysis has shown that his speech patterns changed over the years of his presidency in ways that indicate cognitive decline. Reagan was 77 when he left office at the end of his second term.

So, circling back to the present debate on the age of presidential candidates, it seems to me that age alone is not a good indicator of health or fitness for the rigors of the presidency. President Biden seems to be doing well at age 80 with both the physical and mental demands of the job. I also appreciate his even temperament and moral grounding, which, as a fellow Catholic, I recognize as rooted in Catholic social justice doctrine and in line with the American concept of working for the common good, articulated in the Constitution as a call to “promote the general welfare.”

On the other hand, when Donald Trump was president, he was not known to keep a very rigorous schedule of official duties. He didn’t seem to understand the complexities of the job, such as dealing with classified materials. He was volatile and resorted to bullying, name calling, and lying to try to get his way, regardless of facts, laws, or policies. Sometimes, when he is speaking without a teleprompter, he doesn’t seem able to construct cogent sentences. I don’t know if there is a medical diagnosis that elucidates these behaviors or not, but I don’t think his age is the salient factor.

While I would prefer younger presidential candidates, in their fifties or sixties perhaps, it is much more important for me that the president be someone who is dedicated to the American people and the rule of law, trying to do what is right for the good of the country and protecting those who are under threat.

If that person happens to be 80-something, so be it.

One-Liner Wednesday: another indictment

Sadly continuing with a recent practice, here is a link to the most recent, devastating, sprawling indictment of Donald Trump, this time under the state of Georgia’s RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization) law around interference in the 2020 election.
*****
Please join us for Linda’s One-Liner Wednesdays. Find out more here: https://lindaghill.com/2023/08/16/one-liner-wednesday-that-feeling-when/

One-Liner Wednesday: another indictment

“The purpose of the conspiracy was to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election by using knowingly false claims of election fraud to obstruct the federal government function by which those results are collected, counted, and certified.”

~ Paragraph 7 of the extremely sobering conspiracy and obstruction indictment of Donald Trump regarding the 2020 election results, which you can read in its entirety here.
*****
This way to refer to 45 pages in one sentence is part of Linda’s One-Liner Wednesday series. Learn more about the series here: https://lindaghill.com/2023/08/02/one-liner-wednesday-am-i-jinxing-it/. I promise that most of the entries will be more fun than mine…

election reflection

When I finally made myself post about the upcoming midterm elections in the US, I knew I’d have to do a wrap-up post, so here goes…

The election outcomes were more positive than I had feared but not as good as I had wished. Some of the ultra-MAGA candidates lost and accepted defeat but a few that lost are refusing to concede. Some who won their races are trying to leverage their position to move legislatures to the extreme right. This is particularly worrisome in the House of Representatives, where some individual Congress members are threatening to withhold their votes to make Republican Kevin McCarthy speaker of the House unless he agrees to undertake certain investigations that come out of right-wing conspiracy theories.

Technically, the election season is not quite over yet. While the Democrats picked up a Senate seat which gives them the majority of 50-49, the race in Georgia is going to be decided in a run-off in a few days. If current Senator Raphael Warnock is re-elected, the Democrats will hold a clear majority of 51-49, which will also give them a majority of committee seats and make confirming President Biden’s nominees quicker and easier in the new session. Theoretically, this would also help make legislation easier to pass but it’s unlikely that the Republican House will pass many bills that the Senate cares to take up. Given that the Republicans don’t really have a platform, it seems they are more inclined to undertake endless investigations than to actually try to make laws and pass budgets.

The impending change in the balance of power in the Congress has led to a push to enact as much legislation as possible before the end of the year. One thing that should happen is raising the debt ceiling; in my ideal world, it would be abolished but I doubt that is in the cards. There needs to be a budget resolution passed. I’d love action on voting rights, codifying reproductive health access, gun safety, care for children and the vulnerable, and anti-poverty programs like permanent expansion of the child tax credit. One major piece of legislation that has passed is marriage equality, which was in place in only some states before the 2015 Obergefell decision from the Supreme Court made it legal nationally. Given the current Court’s eagerness to overturn precedent, an explicit law from Congress will be helpful in ensuring the continuing right to marriage the partner of one’s choice.

I believe that the Republicans were only able to regain the House majority because of the Supreme Court’s gutting of the Voting Rights Act, along with their allowing redistricting maps that were found to be unconstitutional by state courts to stand for this election in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Ohio. There was also extensive gerrymandering in Florida and Texas that favored Republicans.

Contrast this with my home state New York. In an attempt to make redistricting fairer, map making was taken out of the state legislature and assigned to a bipartisan commission with an equal number of Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, the commission could not agree on a new map and sent two versions to the legislature, which drew its own map and adopted it. The Republicans sued, a court threw out that map, and a new one was drawn by an academic. This delayed our primaries and caused major changes in which some incumbents ran against each other in primaries and others had districts that had a majority of voters that were new to them.

It also led to some representatives shopping for a new district that would elect them, even though they don’t live there. Take my current representative Republican Claudia Tenney as an example. She lives in the present 22nd district, which nonsensically lumps part of the Southern Tier where I live with the Utica area where she lives. When it looked like one of the commission or legislative maps was going to be adopted, she had filed to run in the Southern Tier district to my west which was an open seat because the Republican incumbent had resigned. When the court map was adopted, she changed to run in the new 24th district which had been most of the district of the retiring Republican John Katko. I don’t know whether or not she plans to move. I now live in the 19th district and our incoming (Republican) representative, Marc Molinaro, also lives outside our district. I haven’t heard anything from him that he plans to move here, either.

I’ve heard a lot of complaints from national pundits that the Democrats lost the House majority because “the New York legislature is bad at gerrymandering” but they are off the mark. The fact is that the prior maps were drawn when the Republicans had the majority in the State Senate while the Democrats controlled the Assembly. The maps made the House districts upstate, which tends to have more Republicans, lower in population than the downstate districts, which tend to be more heavily Democratic. All the versions of the new maps made the population distribution for each district more even, which is good. Unfortunately, the court’s map that went into effect didn’t give much weight to the prior lines, so lots of voters and candidates were thrown into new districts at a very late date.

For me, that meant going from a central NY district that didn’t really make a lot of sense into a district that stretches from here, through the Catskills and Hudson Valley over to the Connecticut border. It would make much more sense for Binghamton to be included in a Southern Tier district. The Southern Tier is our economic development zone and our regional identity. If we needed to be connected to another region to make the population required, it would make the most sense to include some of the Finger Lakes region. We have much less in common with the Catskills/Hudson Valley.

There are big changes in Democratic Party leadership in the House. The most noted is that Nancy Pelosi, who has been either Speaker or party leader for twenty years is stepping down from leadership. This didn’t surprise me as she had promised to step down from leadership to make room for the next generation. Additionally, she is in her eighties and is recovering from the trauma of the politically motivated attack on her husband and their home before the last election.

Nancy Pelosi has been the most effective House speaker in my lifetime, shepherding through major legislation, such as the Affordable Care Act and the Inflation Reduction Act, with very small Democratic majorities and next to no help from Republicans. She is very astute in figuring out what is possible and bringing along the members to pass it. While she grew up around politics, I think a lot of her success comes from her personal values, shaped by Catholic social justice doctrine and the Constitutional call to “promote the general welfare,” and with her experience raising five children.

Unfortunately, she has been attacked by Republicans in personal and vile terms, which has led to political violence. Besides the recent attack at her home, there are several chilling videos of January sixth insurrectionists threatening her life. That she continues to serve her district and the country is a testament to her strength and convictions as a person and a public servant. I’m grateful that she is remaining in Congress as a mentor in the coming terms, as well as, of course, a powerful voice on policy questions.

When Pelosi stepped down from leadership, her fellow octogenarians Steny Hoyer and James Clyburn also took themselves out of the running for the next two highest-ranking leadership posts. The new top leadership team is Rep. Hakeem Jeffries as Minority Leader, Rep. Katherine Clark as Democratic whip, and Rep. Pete Aguilar as Democratic Caucus chair. They are all in their forties or fifties. Jeffries is the first Black to become leader of a major US political party. Clark is only the second woman, after Pelosi, to be in a top leadership post in Congress. Aguilar is the highest-ranking Latino in Congress.

What is happening with the Republicans is still unclear. While Kevin McCarthy was elected Republican leader, it remains to be seen if he has enough votes to be elected Speaker. It’s also unclear if he or anyone can hold the party together with a slim majority as Speaker Pelosi has been able to do with the Democrats. My fear is that the House Republicans will refuse to craft bipartisan legislation with the Democrats but not be able to hold their own party together to pass bills either. We could wind up with gridlock that leaves even vital legislation in limbo. We’ve seen this before under some past Republican Speakers.

I have a feeling that I will spend the next term writing to Rep. Molinaro, who claims to be a proponent of bipartisanship, asking him to stand up for reasonable legislation that passes the Senate to make it to the House floor for a vote, where it can pass with Democratic and a minority of Republican votes.

Will that happen? I don’t know, but I’ll try to at least start out with that hope.

voting and violence

I try to keep up-to-date on the news, particularly in the US, and often blog about what is happening with politics and public policy.

I admit it has been daunting to write about the upcoming midterm elections next week. There has been so much disheartening rhetoric that I haven’t been able to make myself post about it but I feel compelled to post today after watching the continuing aftermath of the horrific attack against Paul Pelosi, spouse of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

For those of you not in the US, early Friday morning, a 42-year-old man broke into the San Francisco home of Paul and Nancy Pelosi. He had zip ties and duct tape with him and asked where Nancy was. (She was in Washington, DC.) He attacked the 82-year-old Paul Pelosi with a hammer, fracturing his skull and injuring his hands and arms. Pelosi is still in intensive care following surgery and is expected to recover over time from his physical injuries. The suspect is in police custody and will be charged soon, most likely for attempted murder among other charges.

The suspect had posted on social media his belief in a number of conspiracy theories, including those that demonize the Democrats as child abusers. While Democrats have been vocal and universal in the condemnation of the attack, Republicans have been much less so. Instead of recognizing this as political violence, some are saying it is just another example of increasing crime. They also fail to acknowledge that their political advertising, posts, and speeches featuring weapons and demonizing Speaker Pelosi and other prominent Democrats have any role in the increase in political violence.

The Republicans do a lot of “what-about-ism” in which they try to create false equivalencies and fear-monger on their talking points, all while conveniently dismissing any responsibility. In this case, they ignore things like the fact that most of the rise in crime is occurring in Republican-controlled areas that have relaxed regulations on guns. It’s likely that one of the reasons that Mr. Pelosi was attacked with a hammer rather than a gun is that California has a more rigorous system of allowing gun permits than Republican-led states, such as Texas. Republicans, including those in New York, blame bail reform for the increase in violent crime, even though the data show this isn’t true. There is also a much higher level of violent extremism on the far right than on the left. And, of course, we have recent and ongoing trials and convictions of perpetrators of political violence on January 6, 2021 at the US Capitol and the thwarted kidnapping of Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer.

My usual way of determining for whom to vote is to look at the stand of the candidate and their party on a range of issues. Given my personal background, I place the highest priority on environmental and social justice issues. This is in keeping with the principles of Catholic social justice doctrine and with the call in the Preamble to the US Constitution to “promote the general welfare.”

I look at the candidates’ character, personal behavior, and integrity. I also look at their personal experience and intelligence. I want to vote for candidates who are smarter and more experienced than I. I don’t choose candidates on the basis of “who I want to have a beer with!” That comment may sound strange to those outside the US but there is recurring theme about this question as a gauge for likability/authenticity since about the year 2000.

In this election, there is an additional factor that I honestly never thought would be an election issue here in the United States. Do you believe in democracy? So many of the Republican candidates seem to be embracing anti-democratic, even autocratic, leadership and policies. They don’t believe in the outcome of free and fair elections, such as the 2020 election, even though they have no evidence to the contrary. They won’t say that they will accept the outcome of their own election if they lose. They won’t say that Biden was legitimately elected president. They have tried and sometimes succeeded in making it more difficult for minorities, elders, young people, and lower-income people to vote. They have broken up likely Democratic voters who live in a community into different voting districts to dilute the power of their vote.

What is most destructive is that they continue to support and perpetrate the lie that Donald Trump won the 2020 election and that he is not responsible for the January 6 insurrection, for illegal possession of presidential documents (including sensitive national security information), for obstruction of justice, and for other crimes for which there is ample, publicly available evidence.

Apparently, Republicans are into wielding governmental power for their own benefit – and the benefit of the wealthy people and corporations who underwrite them – rather than being public servants.

I won’t be voting for any of them.

I will vote for candidates who uphold our American values and who are serious about enacting and executing laws that improve our lives and communities, that try to heal our planet and climate, and that work with all people of good will to end conflict and disease.

I hope millions of others will join in this cause and remember that democracy is on the ballot.