alternet--2020-10-25--Constitutional law expert debunks the myths of originalism

Originalism has featured prominently in each of the last three Supreme Court confirmation battles – those of Neil Gorsuch in 2017 , Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 and now Amy Coney Barrett .
Each time , misconceptions about this theory of constitutional interpretation have swirled : Is n't originalism self-defeating because the Founders were n't originalist ?
Do n't originalists ignore the amendments written after 1789 ?
Do originalists think the Constitution applies only to horse-drawn carriages and muskets ?
As a constitutional law professor , the author of “ A Debt Against the Living : An Introduction to Originalism , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like to answer some frequently asked questions about originalism – and to debunk some of the myths .
Originalism is the idea that we should interpret the Constitution with its original meaning .
But what , exactly , is the Constitution 's “ original meaning '' ?
Some originalists argue it 's the meaning as understood by those who ratified the Constitution in the various state conventions , or the public that elected those ratifiers .
Others say it 's the understanding of a reasonable , well-educated reader .
Still other scholars claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and should be interpreted with its original “ legal '' meaning .
With this approach , for example , the term “ ex post facto laws '' likely refers only to retroactive criminal laws , and not to all retroactive laws .
Although critics of originalism make much of these intraoriginalist squabbles , the reality is all of the above approaches usually lead to the same answer .
Originalists believe the Constitution is a public instruction to legal officials , much as statutes are public instructions to citizens and to officials .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same way you would interpret any communication intended as a public instruction .
For example , if you found a recipe for apple pie from 1789 , you 'd interpret it with a public meaning and not with a secret or esoteric meaning that you might use to interpret , say , a Socratic dialogue .
Otherwise , the recipe would be an ineffective instruction .
And you 'd also interpret the recipe with its original meaning , that is , the meaning its creator intended to convey .
That does not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the apple pie recipe .
Maybe the recipe has some fatal defect or just does n't meet modern tastes .
In that case we can amend the recipe or perhaps abandon it .
But doing so does n't change what the recipe actually means .
The Constitution works the same way : As a public instruction , its meaning is its original public meaning .
Whether and why the Constitution is legitimate and binding such that we should follow it are separate questions – questions that are deeply contested even among originalists .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the Founders themselves were not originalists .
They say originalism is just an invention of the 1970s and 1980s , a reaction to judicial activism of the Warren Court ( 1953-1969 ) .
That is false .
All of the Founders were originalists .
In 1826 , James Madison wrote , “ In the exposition of laws , and even of Constitutions , how many important errors may be produced by mere innovations in the use of words and phrases , if not controlled by a recurrence to the original and authentic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice John Marshall wrote in 1827 “ that the intention of the [ Constitution ] must prevail ; that this intention must be collected from its words ; that its words are to be understood in that sense in which they are generally used by those for whom the instrument was intended . ''
Daniel Webster argued in 1840 that the Constitution must be interpreted in its “ common and popular sense – in that sense in which the people may be supposed to have understood it when they ratified the Constitution .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his monumental study “ The Constitution in Congress , '' between 1789 and 1861 “ just about everybody '' in Congress “ was an originalist . ''
What 's the difference between originalism and textualism ?
Despite popular belief , there is no difference between the two .
Originalists interpret the Constitution with its original meaning ; textualists interpret statutes with their original meanings .
Same method , different texts .
Both originalists and textualists argue that the secret intent of the Founding Fathers , or the legislative intent of statutory drafters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear meaning .
The Founders ' and drafters ' intent , however , is evidence of what they likely meant by what they wrote .
For that reason , originalists like to look to James Madison 's notes from the Constitutional Convention .
In principle , textualists can look to “ legislative history '' like committee reports for the same reason .
But textualists are wary of relying on legislative history because doing so is unreliable .
There can be so many varying and competing statements in a statute 's legislative history that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the words of Judge Harold Levanthal , kind of like going to a cocktail party , looking over the crowd , and picking out just your friends .
Does the originalist Constitution apply to modern circumstances ?
Of course .
That 's why the First Amendment 's protection for freedom of speech applies to the internet .
It 's why the Fourth Amendment 's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to GPS devices that police officers put on cars .
And , yes , it 's why the Second Amendment applies to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ words , originalists are not bound by the original expected applications of the Constitution 's text .
They 're bound by the original meaning of the text , and that meaning can and does apply to new and changing factual circumstances .
[ Deep knowledge , daily .
Sign up for The Conversation 's newsletter . ]
Justice Elena Kagan , appointed by President Obama in 2010 , famously announced at her confirmation hearing that “ we 're all originalists now . ''
She meant that all justices take the text of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Only three justices , however – Clarence Thomas , Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – are self-avowed originalists .
Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts both take a more pragmatic approach , giving more weight to precedents and consequences .
Justices Stephen Breyer , Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor believe the Constitution can and should evolve over time .
Do originalists ignore Reconstruction ?
Do they reject Brown v. Board ?
A more recent misconception is that originalists ignore all the amendments written after 1789 , the year the Constitution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ odd criticism because that would include the Bill of Rights , which was n't added until 1791 .
Originalists are bound by changes to the Constitution that have been properly made through the amendment process .
This is also why originalism can and does justify Brown v. Board of Education , the landmark school desegregation decision .
The 14th Amendment 's privileges or immunities clause – which provides that no state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizens – was an anti-discrimination provision with respect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If education is a civil right – and it is – then once it is acknowledged that segregation was never about equality but rather about keeping one race of Americans subordinated to another , segregated public schools obviously violate the Constitution .
That brings us to the final misconception : Is n't originalism just a rationalization for conservative results ?
The short answer is “ no . ''
Originalists take the bitter with the sweet .
They may not like federal income taxes or the direct election of senators , but they accept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 17th amendments on those points .
Moreover , originalists often believe – whether on abortion or same-sex marriage , for example – that controversial political and moral questions should be decided by the democratic , legislative process , a process that can lead to progressive , libertarian or conservative outcomes .
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

Ilan Wurman, Arizona State University
Originalism has featured prominently in each of the last three Supreme Court confirmation battles – those of Neil Gorsuch in 2017, Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 and now Amy Coney Barrett. Each time, misconceptions about this theory of constitutional interpretation have swirled: Isn't originalism self-defeating because the Founders weren't originalist? Don't originalists ignore the amendments written after 1789? Do originalists think the Constitution applies only to horse-drawn carriages and muskets?
As a constitutional law professor, the author of “A Debt Against the Living: An Introduction to Originalism," and an originalist, I'd like to answer some frequently asked questions about originalism – and to debunk some of the myths.
What is originalism?
Originalism is the idea that we should interpret the Constitution with its original meaning. But what, exactly, is the Constitution's “original meaning"?
Some originalists argue it's the meaning as understood by those who ratified the Constitution in the various state conventions, or the public that elected those ratifiers. Others say it's the understanding of a reasonable, well-educated reader. Still other scholars claim the Constitution is written in legal language and should be interpreted with its original “legal" meaning. With this approach, for example, the term “ex post facto laws" likely refers only to retroactive criminal laws, and not to all retroactive laws.
Although critics of originalism make much of these intraoriginalist squabbles, the reality is all of the above approaches usually lead to the same answer.
Why originalism?
Originalists believe the Constitution is a public instruction to legal officials, much as statutes are public instructions to citizens and to officials. As such, the Constitution should be interpreted the same way you would interpret any communication intended as a public instruction.
For example, if you found a recipe for apple pie from 1789, you'd interpret it with a public meaning and not with a secret or esoteric meaning that you might use to interpret, say, a Socratic dialogue. Otherwise, the recipe would be an ineffective instruction. And you'd also interpret the recipe with its original meaning, that is, the meaning its creator intended to convey.
That does not, however, mean we should follow the apple pie recipe. Maybe the recipe has some fatal defect or just doesn't meet modern tastes. In that case we can amend the recipe or perhaps abandon it. But doing so doesn't change what the recipe actually means.
The Constitution works the same way: As a public instruction, its meaning is its original public meaning. Whether and why the Constitution is legitimate and binding such that we should follow it are separate questions – questions that are deeply contested even among originalists.
Were the Founders originalists?
Some critics claim that originalism is self-defeating because the Founders themselves were not originalists. They say originalism is just an invention of the 1970s and 1980s, a reaction to judicial activism of the Warren Court (1953-1969). That is false.
All of the Founders were originalists. In 1826, James Madison wrote, “In the exposition of laws, and even of Constitutions, how many important errors may be produced by mere innovations in the use of words and phrases, if not controlled by a recurrence to the original and authentic meaning attached to them!" Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in 1827 “that the intention of the [Constitution] must prevail; that this intention must be collected from its words; that its words are to be understood in that sense in which they are generally used by those for whom the instrument was intended." Daniel Webster argued in 1840 that the Constitution must be interpreted in its “common and popular sense – in that sense in which the people may be supposed to have understood it when they ratified the Constitution." And as David P. Currie explained in his monumental study “The Constitution in Congress," between 1789 and 1861 “just about everybody" in Congress “was an originalist."
What's the difference between originalism and textualism?
Despite popular belief, there is no difference between the two. Originalists interpret the Constitution with its original meaning; textualists interpret statutes with their original meanings. Same method, different texts.
Both originalists and textualists argue that the secret intent of the Founding Fathers, or the legislative intent of statutory drafters, cannot override the text's clear meaning. The Founders' and drafters' intent, however, is evidence of what they likely meant by what they wrote.
For that reason, originalists like to look to James Madison's notes from the Constitutional Convention. In principle, textualists can look to “legislative history" like committee reports for the same reason. But textualists are wary of relying on legislative history because doing so is unreliable. There can be so many varying and competing statements in a statute's legislative history that relying on legislative history is, in the words of Judge Harold Levanthal, kind of like going to a cocktail party, looking over the crowd, and picking out just your friends.
Does the originalist Constitution apply to modern circumstances?
Of course. That's why the First Amendment's protection for freedom of speech applies to the internet. It's why the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to GPS devices that police officers put on cars. And, yes, it's why the Second Amendment applies to more than just muskets. In other words, originalists are not bound by the original expected applications of the Constitution's text. They're bound by the original meaning of the text, and that meaning can and does apply to new and changing factual circumstances.
[Deep knowledge, daily.Sign up for The Conversation's newsletter.]
Are all Supreme Court justices originalists?
Justice Elena Kagan, appointed by President Obama in 2010, famously announced at her confirmation hearing that “we're all originalists now." She meant that all justices take the text of the Constitution more seriously than they used to. Only three justices, however – Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – are self-avowed originalists. Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts both take a more pragmatic approach, giving more weight to precedents and consequences. Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor believe the Constitution can and should evolve over time.
Do originalists ignore Reconstruction? Do they reject Brown v. Board?
A more recent misconception is that originalists ignore all the amendments written after 1789, the year the Constitution went into effect. This is an odd criticism because that would include the Bill of Rights, which wasn't added until 1791. Originalists are bound by changes to the Constitution that have been properly made through the amendment process.
This is also why originalism can and does justify Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark school desegregation decision. The 14th Amendment's privileges or immunities clause – which provides that no state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizens – was an anti-discrimination provision with respect to civil rights under state law. If education is a civil right – and it is – then once it is acknowledged that segregation was never about equality but rather about keeping one race of Americans subordinated to another, segregated public schools obviously violate the Constitution.
Is originalism just a conservative ploy?
That brings us to the final misconception: Isn't originalism just a rationalization for conservative results? The short answer is “no." Originalists take the bitter with the sweet. They may not like federal income taxes or the direct election of senators, but they accept the original meaning of the 16th and 17th amendments on those points. Moreover, originalists often believe – whether on abortion or same-sex marriage, for example – that controversial political and moral questions should be decided by the democratic, legislative process, a process that can lead to progressive, libertarian or conservative outcomes.
Ilan Wurman, Associate Professor of Law, Arizona State University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


alternet--2020-10-26--All eyes on Wisconsin as partisan gridlock at state elections commission frustrates voters and local

All eyes on Wisconsin as partisan gridlock at state elections commission frustrates voters and local officials

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom .
Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox .
As ballots began pouring in by mail after Wisconsin 's April 7 primary , local election officials became increasingly perplexed over which ones to count .
A federal judge had ordered that ballots arriving as many as six days after the election should be accepted , but the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed that window , ruling that ballots should be counted only if they were postmarked by Election Day .
The trouble was that many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the marks were unreadable .
Other mail ballots were lost or delayed , threatening to disenfranchise thousands of voters .
Desperate for guidance , the 1,850 municipal clerks who run Wisconsin 's elections turned to the state agency tasked with helping them : the Wisconsin Elections Commission .
Three days after the primary , the commission 's three Democrats and three Republicans wrangled over the issue for two and a half hours in a virtual meeting .
The Democrats wanted all ballots received in the mail by April 8 — postmarked or not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pushed to reject all ballots with missing or illegible postmarks .
“ We 're going to sit here all night , 3-3 , if we ca n't even agree the mail takes more than a day , '' said Commissioner Ann Jacobs , a Democratic appointee and lawyer , pursing her lips and shaking her head as she peered into her computer screen .
“ We 're not going to ever agree on whether these marks count or not — we 're wasting our time . ''
Dean Knudson , a former Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , retorted , “ Can you envision supporting any motion that would exclude any ballot ? ''
In the end , the commission deadlocked 3-3 not once but twice over motions to deal with the disputed ballots , leaving each of Wisconsin 's municipal clerks to decide on their own what to do .
For the state 's top agency overseeing elections , such standoffs have become the norm .
With the national spotlight on Wisconsin as a swing state that could sway the presidential election , the commission has become increasingly stalemated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Wisconsin Watch and ProPublica .
Although the commission has reached consensus on a handful of important issues , such as the mailing of ballot applications to voters , it increasingly stalemates along party lines .
Commission members have strayed far from the apolitical approach of the panel 's predecessor board , which was considered a national model for effective election administration .
Both Democratic and Republican members often take their cues from their party leaders .
The commission 's format is “ a recipe for gridlock , '' said Jay Heck , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wisconsin .
“ We 've returned to where we were in the late 1990s , with partisan control of the body that oversees Wisconsin elections .
… And so what that means is that if you have a 3-3 tie on any matter that 's under consideration , nothing happens .
Nothing moves ahead . ''
The commission has deadlocked at least 19 times in the 28 meetings it has held since the start of 2020 , but only five times in the prior four years , according to meeting minutes , video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data was available for five meetings this year and one last year , either because there was no video recording or the commission met in closed session . )
Most of the tied votes in the commission 's four-year history have occurred since Robert Spindell Jr. , a Republican donor who promotes unfounded allegations of vote-by-mail fraud , joined the commission in late 2019 .
The latest deadlock was Oct. 20 , two weeks before the election , over how to handle a complaint that the Milwaukee Election Commission had been tardy in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ polling locations before the April 7 primary .
When Spindell began to address the merits of the complaint , Jacobs interrupted , saying it did n't come under their purview .
“ Are you trying to muzzle me ? ''
Spindell shouted at her over Zoom .
The inaction has shifted responsibility to courts and municipalities , at times sowing confusion , delays and inconsistency .
The commission gridlocked over whether the Green Party presidential ticket should be allowed on the ballot and whether to follow a judge 's order to purge a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both issues ended up in court .
During an Aug. 5 hearing on four cases related to rules changes for the Nov. 3 election , U.S. District Judge William Conley expressed astonishment that the commission had been “ frozen by gridlock over such simple issues . ''
The Wisconsin commission 's dysfunction mirrors that of the national Election Assistance Commission , which was established in the aftermath of the disputed 2000 presidential election to help states and localities administer elections .
It is made up of equal numbers of Republican and Democratic appointees @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partisan disagreements .
Besides Wisconsin , eight states have an appointed board overseeing elections .
Because of the commission 's deadlock over disputed ballots , the village of Cambridge counted those it received without postmarks after primary day , but the city of Janesville did n't .
There were even disparities within families .
Christopher Koschnitzke 's vote-by-mail ballot was among the 5,640 spurned statewide for arriving too late , although his wife 's — mailed at the same time — was not .
His absentee ballot envelope showed that his ballot had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on April 6 , the day before the primary , but a clerk rejected it , noting that the postmark was not “ readable . ''
“ I did everything I needed to do .
My wife did everything she needed to do , '' said Koschnitzke , 40 , a Lutheran pastor who was living near Waterloo , Wisconsin , at the time .
“ It makes you wonder : How valid is the process and how many more people are in the same position that I 'm in ? ''
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The commission replaced Wisconsin 's Government Accountability Board , made up of six retired judges who rarely deadlocked during its eight-year history .
The GAB was formed in 2008 in the wake of the so-called legislative caucus scandal involving lawmakers who illegally used state-paid aides to run private political campaigns .
The scandal resulted in criminal charges against lawmakers and staff , including the top two legislative leaders , Republican Assembly Speaker Scott Jensen and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Chvala .
Jensen 's felony convictions later were dismissed , on condition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to never seek public office again .
Chvala was sentenced to nine months in jail , serving most of the time on home electronic monitoring .
The GAB was composed of retired judges specifically to avoid partisanship .
Although judges are elected in Wisconsin , they run without party affiliations .
Potential board members were chosen by a panel of appeals court judges for appointment by the governor .
The GAB had the power to conduct independent investigations that did not require legislative approval .
“ Wisconsin 's GAB is unique among state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' wrote Daniel P. Tokaji , now dean of the University of Wisconsin Law School , in a 2013 UC-Irvine Law Review article .
“ It is a genuinely nonpartisan institution , in an era of fierce and acrimonious partisan competition . ''
The board was abolished in 2015 , however , by Republican lawmakers furious over its role in investigating former Gov .
Scott Walker 's 2012 campaign after he was recalled .
Leading the charge to abolish the GAB was Knudson , then a state representative .
He was appointed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which he helped to create — to fill out the term of another commission member , Steve King , who was named ambassador to the Czech Republic by President Donald Trump .
Among the casualties of the GAB 's demise was its longtime election chief Kevin Kennedy , who was forced out in 2016 — one day before the new commission was set to launch .
The new commission unanimously nominated the GAB 's elections administrator , Michael Haas , to replace Kennedy , but in 2018 the Senate refused to confirm Haas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an episode of “ dirty , dirty politics . ''
Haas left the agency and is now the Madison city attorney .
Wisconsin 's current setup gives most of the power over the commission to the Legislature , where Republicans have nearly insurmountable control thanks to gerrymandering that survived a U.S. Supreme Court challenge .
The top four legislative leaders appoint four of the six members , with Republicans and Democrats equally represented .
Wisconsin 's governor , Tony Evers , is a Democrat , but he appoints just two members to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , one from each major party , from a list provided by those legislative leaders .
All appointments are subject to confirmation in the GOP-run state Senate , including commissioners ' choice for the administrator to lead the agency .
Campaign-related investigations are now handled by a separate Ethics Commission .
Both Republican and Democratic appointees of the Wisconsin Elections Commission interviewed by Wisconsin Watch say they have consulted with the legislative leaders who appointed them before voting on key issues .
Calling himself “ an officer of the Republican Party , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fitzgerald , the Senate majority leader , and Andrew Hitt , chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin .
Hitt and Mark Jefferson , RPW executive director , both talked with Spindell about a proposal to send request forms for absentee ballots to all registered voters in Wisconsin .
Hitt said he let Spindell know that he supported the idea .
“ Anybody who thinks Bob Spindell takes 'marching orders ' has n't met Bob , '' Hitt added .
“ I believe most of the discussions I 've had with Bob have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jefferson said in a July deposition .
Fitzgerald did not respond to requests for comment .
Spindell said his presence on the commission adds balance .
“ I think that it 's my job to watch out and protect the interests of the Republican Party , because I 'm appointed by an elected official of the Republican Party , '' said Spindell , who is a senior vice president in Milwaukee for a national merger and acquisitions firm .
“ Before I got on the commission , both the GAB and the Wisconsin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Republican Party , '' he said .
“ I think I 've changed that . ''
Like Spindell , Democratic commissioner Jacobs does not shy away from the partisan nature of her appointment , saying it makes the commission more transparent .
Her “ mantra , '' she said , is that “ every eligible voter who wants to vote should be able to cast their vote , have it counted . ''
She added , “ We know where people stand on certain issues and the like , so I do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it being partisan . ''
Commissioner Thomsen , a Milwaukee attorney , said he , too , sometimes consults the legislator who appointed him , Assembly Minority Leader Gordon Hintz , a Democrat from Oshkosh , on issues before the commission .
Matthew Kirkpatrick , an election law attorney based in Menomonie , Wisconsin , said it 's almost inevitable that , in a polarized political landscape , tensions sometimes erupt .
“ This commission , while having a noble goal , sometimes gets down to political infighting , jockeying for position , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vitriol has made it down to all the local governing , which is sad . ''
“ Everything is contentious .
Everything is an 'us-versus-them , ' '' he said .
Before joining the state elections commission , Spindell served on the Milwaukee Election Commission .
A campaign donor who has given at least $ 60,000 to state and federal GOP candidates , Spindell served as a Republican National Convention delegate in 2016 and was an unsuccessful candidate for a suburban Milwaukee Assembly seat in 1992 .
Even then , Spindell was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assembly , Spindell was facing arrest warrants over two unpaid municipal forfeitures .
He said he was n't aware of the warrants until he learned about them from news reports , and then he paid the fines promptly .
Like Trump , Spindell routinely spreads misinformation about widespread absentee vote fraud .
He 's pushed the accusations with political ads as chairman of a dark-money political group , Wisconsin Patriotic Veterans .
He said he is speaking in the ads for himself , not as an elections commissioner .
Just before the November @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ irate exchange '' with an election worker at a polling place , retired Milwaukee Election Commission executive director Neil Albrecht recalled .
Spindell , then a member of the Milwaukee commission , accused the worker of telling a voter how to vote , and he demanded that Albrecht reassign or remove her from the site .
According to Albrecht , the voter had asked for help identifying Democratic candidates , and the worker was legally providing assistance .
Spindell defended his behavior .
“ What I said to him was exactly correct @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voter .
This lady was doing it to every single one , '' he said .
“ She was giving the ballot to somebody and then pointing to ... the Democratic names on the ballot . ''
“ That certainly is something that is not allowed , '' he added .
Soon after Spindell was appointed to the state commission , members clashed over updating the voter rolls .
In October 2019 , the commission sent 232,000 letters to Wisconsinites who were believed to have moved , asking for them to either confirm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registration .
Those who did not respond would be removed from the rolls in 2021 , the commission decided , based on an earlier effort that had deactivated thousands of voters incorrectly targeted for removal .
The conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty sued the elections commission , arguing that state law required the commission to act within 30 days to remove voters flagged as possibly having moved or died .
In December , Ozaukee County Circuit Judge Paul Malloy agreed , ordering commissioners to immediately purge the voters from the rolls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the commission split along party lines three times on how to proceed , with Republicans , including Spindell , voting to comply and Democrats refusing to do so .
Finally , in February , the Wisconsin Court of Appeals overturned Malloy 's order , ruling that the law applies to municipal clerks who run elections — not the state elections agency .
The matter is now before the Wisconsin Supreme Court , which has a 4-3 conservative majority .
On Aug. 20 , all eyes were on Wisconsin again as an attorney for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rapper 's way onto the presidential ballot .
West 's unexpected candidacy was widely seen as a Republican effort to take votes away from Democratic candidate Joe Biden to benefit Trump , who won Wisconsin in 2016 by less than 1 percentage point .
After deliberating more than four hours , the commission ultimately deemed West ineligible because his attorney missed the deadline by about one minute to submit nomination papers , which were sprinkled with names of fake Wisconsin electors including Mickey Mouse , Kanye West and Bernie Sanders .
The vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the partisan canyon to join the three Democrats .
The only holdout was Spindell .
Another flashpoint was the August debate over Green Party presidential candidate Howie Hawkins and vice presidential candidate Angela Walker .
The pair had gathered enough signatures to be put on the ballot .
But they had filed documents that listed two different addresses for Walker , who had moved during the circulation of the nomination papers , raising questions about which of the signatures were legally valid .
The commissioners split 3-3 along party lines over whether to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ source of votes to be siphoned away from Biden — on the ballot .
After the commission deadlocked twice , Knudson offered a workaround : Certify 1,789 of the signatures presented by the party , short of the required 2,000 to get on the ballot , and let a judge sort out the remaining 1,834 signatures .
The motion passed 6-0 , and the Green Party was denied ballot access .
Afterward , Spindell emailed a Green Party official , apologizing for the commission 's decision .
The party asked him to recommend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ the best election lawyer in the city , '' he said .
The party sued the commission , but the state Supreme Court on a 4-3 vote declined to take up the case , saying it came too late in the election season .
Not surprisingly , members of the commission disagree with the notion that it has taken a backward turn .
Knudson , the architect of the Elections Commission , said in a June video interview with the -

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
As ballots began pouring in by mail after Wisconsin's April 7 primary, local election officials became increasingly perplexed over which ones to count.
A federal judge had ordered that ballots arriving as many as six days after the election should be accepted, but the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed that window, ruling that ballots should be counted only if they were postmarked by Election Day.
The trouble was that many ballots were arriving without postmarks, or the marks were unreadable. Other mail ballots were lost or delayed, threatening to disenfranchise thousands of voters. Desperate for guidance, the 1,850 municipal clerks who run Wisconsin's elections turned to the state agency tasked with helping them: the Wisconsin Elections Commission.
Three days after the primary, the commission's three Democrats and three Republicans wrangled over the issue for two and a half hours in a virtual meeting. The Democrats wanted all ballots received in the mail by April 8 — postmarked or not — to be accepted; the Republicans pushed to reject all ballots with missing or illegible postmarks.
“We're going to sit here all night, 3-3, if we can't even agree the mail takes more than a day," said Commissioner Ann Jacobs, a Democratic appointee and lawyer, pursing her lips and shaking her head as she peered into her computer screen. “We're not going to ever agree on whether these marks count or not — we're wasting our time."
Dean Knudson, a former Republican lawmaker who was chairman at the time, retorted, “Can you envision supporting any motion that would exclude any ballot?"
In the end, the commission deadlocked 3-3 not once but twice over motions to deal with the disputed ballots, leaving each of Wisconsin's municipal clerks to decide on their own what to do. For the state's top agency overseeing elections, such standoffs have become the norm. With the national spotlight on Wisconsin as a swing state that could sway the presidential election, the commission has become increasingly stalemated and ineffective, according to an investigation by Wisconsin Watch and ProPublica.
Although the commission has reached consensus on a handful of important issues, such as the mailing of ballot applications to voters, it increasingly stalemates along party lines. Commission members have strayed far from the apolitical approach of the panel's predecessor board, which was considered a national model for effective election administration. Both Democratic and Republican members often take their cues from their party leaders.
The commission's format is “a recipe for gridlock," said Jay Heck, the executive director of Common Cause in Wisconsin. “We've returned to where we were in the late 1990s, with partisan control of the body that oversees Wisconsin elections. … And so what that means is that if you have a 3-3 tie on any matter that's under consideration, nothing happens. Nothing moves ahead."
The commission has deadlocked at least 19 times in the 28 meetings it has held since the start of 2020, but only five times in the prior four years, according to meeting minutes, video recordings and live coverage. (No data was available for five meetings this year and one last year, either because there was no video recording or the commission met in closed session.) Most of the tied votes in the commission's four-year history have occurred since Robert Spindell Jr., a Republican donor who promotes unfounded allegations of vote-by-mail fraud, joined the commission in late 2019.
The latest deadlock was Oct. 20, two weeks before the election, over how to handle a complaint that the Milwaukee Election Commission had been tardy in informing voters of a massive reduction in polling locations before the April 7 primary. When Spindell began to address the merits of the complaint, Jacobs interrupted, saying it didn't come under their purview. “Are you trying to muzzle me?" Spindell shouted at her over Zoom.
The inaction has shifted responsibility to courts and municipalities, at times sowing confusion, delays and inconsistency. The commission gridlocked over whether the Green Party presidential ticket should be allowed on the ballot and whether to follow a judge's order to purge a quarter-million Wisconsin voters from the rolls; both issues ended up in court. During an Aug. 5 hearing on four cases related to rules changes for the Nov. 3 election, U.S. District Judge William Conley expressed astonishment that the commission had been “frozen by gridlock over such simple issues."
The Wisconsin commission's dysfunction mirrors that of the national Election Assistance Commission, which was established in the aftermath of the disputed 2000 presidential election to help states and localities administer elections. It is made up of equal numbers of Republican and Democratic appointees and at times has been paralyzed by partisan disagreements. Besides Wisconsin, eight states have an appointed board overseeing elections.
Because of the commission's deadlock over disputed ballots, the village of Cambridge counted those it received without postmarks after primary day, but the city of Janesville didn't. There were even disparities within families. Christopher Koschnitzke's vote-by-mail ballot was among the 5,640 spurned statewide for arriving too late, although his wife's — mailed at the same time — was not. His absentee ballot envelope showed that his ballot had been signed by a witness and mailed on April 6, the day before the primary, but a clerk rejected it, noting that the postmark was not “readable."
“I did everything I needed to do. My wife did everything she needed to do," said Koschnitzke, 40, a Lutheran pastor who was living near Waterloo, Wisconsin, at the time. “It makes you wonder: How valid is the process and how many more people are in the same position that I'm in?"
“A Genuinely Nonpartisan Institution"
It didn't have to be this way. The commission replaced Wisconsin's Government Accountability Board, made up of six retired judges who rarely deadlocked during its eight-year history.
The GAB was formed in 2008 in the wake of the so-called legislative caucus scandal involving lawmakers who illegally used state-paid aides to run private political campaigns. The scandal resulted in criminal charges against lawmakers and staff, including the top two legislative leaders, Republican Assembly Speaker Scott Jensen and Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Chvala. Jensen's felony convictions later were dismissed, on condition that he paid a fine and agreed to never seek public office again. Chvala was sentenced to nine months in jail, serving most of the time on home electronic monitoring.
The GAB was composed of retired judges specifically to avoid partisanship. Although judges are elected in Wisconsin, they run without party affiliations. Potential board members were chosen by a panel of appeals court judges for appointment by the governor. The GAB had the power to conduct independent investigations that did not require legislative approval.
“Wisconsin's GAB is unique among state election authorities in the United States," wrote Daniel P. Tokaji, now dean of the University of Wisconsin Law School, in a 2013 UC-Irvine Law Review article. “It is a genuinely nonpartisan institution, in an era of fierce and acrimonious partisan competition."
The board was abolished in 2015, however, by Republican lawmakers furious over its role in investigating former Gov. Scott Walker's 2012 campaign after he was recalled. Leading the charge to abolish the GAB was Knudson, then a state representative. He was appointed in 2017 to the Wisconsin Elections Commission — which he helped to create — to fill out the term of another commission member, Steve King, who was named ambassador to the Czech Republic by President Donald Trump.
Among the casualties of the GAB's demise was its longtime election chief Kevin Kennedy, who was forced out in 2016 — one day before the new commission was set to launch.
The new commission unanimously nominated the GAB's elections administrator, Michael Haas, to replace Kennedy, but in 2018 the Senate refused to confirm Haas in what Democratic-appointed Commissioner Mark Thomsen labeled an episode of “dirty, dirty politics." Haas left the agency and is now the Madison city attorney.
Wisconsin's current setup gives most of the power over the commission to the Legislature, where Republicans have nearly insurmountable control thanks to gerrymandering that survived a U.S. Supreme Court challenge. The top four legislative leaders appoint four of the six members, with Republicans and Democrats equally represented. Wisconsin's governor, Tony Evers, is a Democrat, but he appoints just two members to the commission — former county or municipal clerks, one from each major party, from a list provided by those legislative leaders.
All appointments are subject to confirmation in the GOP-run state Senate, including commissioners' choice for the administrator to lead the agency. Campaign-related investigations are now handled by a separate Ethics Commission.
Pushing Partisan Agendas
Both Republican and Democratic appointees of the Wisconsin Elections Commission interviewed by Wisconsin Watch say they have consulted with the legislative leaders who appointed them before voting on key issues.
Calling himself “an officer of the Republican Party," Spindell said he plots strategy with Scott Fitzgerald, the Senate majority leader, and Andrew Hitt, chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin. Hitt and Mark Jefferson, RPW executive director, both talked with Spindell about a proposal to send request forms for absentee ballots to all registered voters in Wisconsin.
Hitt said he let Spindell know that he supported the idea. “Anybody who thinks Bob Spindell takes 'marching orders' hasn't met Bob," Hitt added.
“I believe most of the discussions I've had with Bob have been over the Elections Commission," Jefferson said in a July deposition. Fitzgerald did not respond to requests for comment.
Spindell said his presence on the commission adds balance. “I think that it's my job to watch out and protect the interests of the Republican Party, because I'm appointed by an elected official of the Republican Party," said Spindell, who is a senior vice president in Milwaukee for a national merger and acquisitions firm.
“Before I got on the commission, both the GAB and the Wisconsin Elections Commission were thought of terribly by the Republican Party," he said. “I think I've changed that."
Like Spindell, Democratic commissioner Jacobs does not shy away from the partisan nature of her appointment, saying it makes the commission more transparent. Her “mantra," she said, is that “every eligible voter who wants to vote should be able to cast their vote, have it counted."
She added, “We know where people stand on certain issues and the like, so I don't think there's anything wrong with it being partisan."
Commissioner Thomsen, a Milwaukee attorney, said he, too, sometimes consults the legislator who appointed him, Assembly Minority Leader Gordon Hintz, a Democrat from Oshkosh, on issues before the commission.
Matthew Kirkpatrick, an election law attorney based in Menomonie, Wisconsin, said it's almost inevitable that, in a polarized political landscape, tensions sometimes erupt.
“This commission, while having a noble goal, sometimes gets down to political infighting, jockeying for position," Kirkpatrick said. “The national vitriol has made it down to all the local governing, which is sad."
“Everything is contentious. Everything is an 'us-versus-them,'" he said.
A Controversial Figure
Before joining the state elections commission, Spindell served on the Milwaukee Election Commission. A campaign donor who has given at least $60,000 to state and federal GOP candidates, Spindell served as a Republican National Convention delegate in 2016 and was an unsuccessful candidate for a suburban Milwaukee Assembly seat in 1992.
Even then, Spindell was a controversial figure. While running for the Assembly, Spindell was facing arrest warrants over two unpaid municipal forfeitures. He said he wasn't aware of the warrants until he learned about them from news reports, and then he paid the fines promptly.
Like Trump, Spindell routinely spreads misinformation about widespread absentee vote fraud. He's pushed the accusations with political ads as chairman of a dark-money political group, Wisconsin Patriotic Veterans. He said he is speaking in the ads for himself, not as an elections commissioner.
Just before the November 2016 presidential election, Spindell had an “irate exchange" with an election worker at a polling place, retired Milwaukee Election Commission executive director Neil Albrecht recalled. Spindell, then a member of the Milwaukee commission, accused the worker of telling a voter how to vote, and he demanded that Albrecht reassign or remove her from the site. According to Albrecht, the voter had asked for help identifying Democratic candidates, and the worker was legally providing assistance.
Spindell defended his behavior. “What I said to him was exactly correct, because it just wasn't one voter. This lady was doing it to every single one," he said. “She was giving the ballot to somebody and then pointing to ... the Democratic names on the ballot."
“That certainly is something that is not allowed," he added.
Soon after Spindell was appointed to the state commission, members clashed over updating the voter rolls. In October 2019, the commission sent 232,000 letters to Wisconsinites who were believed to have moved, asking for them to either confirm their current address or update their voter registration. Those who did not respond would be removed from the rolls in 2021, the commission decided, based on an earlier effort that had deactivated thousands of voters incorrectly targeted for removal.
The conservative Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty sued the elections commission, arguing that state law required the commission to act within 30 days to remove voters flagged as possibly having moved or died.
In December, Ozaukee County Circuit Judge Paul Malloy agreed, ordering commissioners to immediately purge the voters from the rolls. Faced with Malloy's order, the commission split along party lines three times on how to proceed, with Republicans, including Spindell, voting to comply and Democrats refusing to do so.
Finally, in February, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals overturned Malloy's order, ruling that the law applies to municipal clerks who run elections — not the state elections agency. The matter is now before the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which has a 4-3 conservative majority.
Rebuffing Kanye and the Green Party
On Aug. 20, all eyes were on Wisconsin again as an attorney for Kanye West tried to argue the erratic rapper's way onto the presidential ballot. West's unexpected candidacy was widely seen as a Republican effort to take votes away from Democratic candidate Joe Biden to benefit Trump, who won Wisconsin in 2016 by less than 1 percentage point.
After deliberating more than four hours, the commission ultimately deemed West ineligible because his attorney missed the deadline by about one minute to submit nomination papers, which were sprinkled with names of fake Wisconsin electors including Mickey Mouse, Kanye West and Bernie Sanders.
The vote was 5-1. Two Republican commissioners crossed the partisan canyon to join the three Democrats. The only holdout was Spindell.
Another flashpoint was the August debate over Green Party presidential candidate Howie Hawkins and vice presidential candidate Angela Walker. The pair had gathered enough signatures to be put on the ballot. But they had filed documents that listed two different addresses for Walker, who had moved during the circulation of the nomination papers, raising questions about which of the signatures were legally valid.
The commissioners split 3-3 along party lines over whether to allow the Green Party — another perceived source of votes to be siphoned away from Biden — on the ballot.
After the commission deadlocked twice, Knudson offered a workaround: Certify 1,789 of the signatures presented by the party, short of the required 2,000 to get on the ballot, and let a judge sort out the remaining 1,834 signatures. The motion passed 6-0, and the Green Party was denied ballot access.
Afterward, Spindell emailed a Green Party official, apologizing for the commission's decision. The party asked him to recommend an attorney and he supplied the name of “the best election lawyer in the city," he said. The party sued the commission, but the state Supreme Court on a 4-3 vote declined to take up the case, saying it came too late in the election season.
Embracing the Divide
Not surprisingly, members of the commission disagree with the notion that it has taken a backward turn.
Knudson, the architect of the Elections Commission, said in a June video interview with the -


alternet--2020-10-27--Senate Republicans confirm Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court

In the first entirely partisan Supreme Court vote Republicans have just confirmed Amy Coney Barrett to become President Donald Trump @ @ @ @ @ on the nation 's top court .
This is the first time in U.S. history @ @ @ @ @ not get a single `` yea '' vote from the minority party .
Barrett , @ @ @ @ @ is slated to be sworn in Monday night at a White House event .
Judge @ @ @ @ @ of constitutional interpretation known as originalism , which was created just 40 years ago .
@ @ @ @ @ is not a living document , and justices must rule based on how the founders @ @ @ @ @ in their day .

In the first entirely partisan Supreme Court vote Republicans have just confirmed Amy Coney Barrett to become President Donald Trump's third justice to sit on the nation's top court.
Barrett was confirmed with 52 votes.
This is the first time in U.S. history a Supreme Court nominee did not get a single "yea" vote from the minority party.
Barrett, a far right extremist, is slated to be sworn in Monday night at a White House event.
Judge Barrett subscribes to the pseudo-science of constitutional interpretation known as originalism, which was created just 40 years ago. It claims the U.S. Constitution is not a living document, and justices must rule based on how the founders thought and viewed the law in their day.


alternet--2020-10-27--Trump has a very bad weekend in his efforts to change the subject from COVID-19

Donald Trump has been working hard to change the subject from the coronavirus pandemic , since his failure to control it is a major reason he is on track to lose on November 3 .
From that point of view , this was a very , very bad weekend for Trump .
So bad .
First , five members of Mike Pence 's staff tested positive , news that got out despite the White House 's efforts to cover it up .
Pence announced he would keep to his schedule because , get this , he 's an essential worker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so that 's the work being claimed as so essential he ca n't follow guidelines and quarantine after close contact with people who have COVID-19 .
Then White House chief of staff Mark Meadows went on TV Sunday morning and said , `` We 're not going to control the pandemic . ''
`` We are going to control the fact that we get vaccines , therapeutics and other mitigations , '' Meadows continued .
Those are in the future though .
In the present , the seven-day average of new cases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and hospitalizations are up .
`` We 're not going to control the pandemic . ''
Let that one sink in .
`` This was n't a slip by Meadows ; it was a candid acknowledgment of what President Trump 's strategy has clearly been from the beginning of this crisis : to wave the white flag of defeat and hope that by ignoring it , the virus would simply go away , '' Joe Biden said in a statement .
`` It has n't , and it wo n't . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasing the 165 times he 's downplayed the threat of the virus : At a Saturday rally , he whined `` Turn on television : 'covid , covid , covid , covid , covid . '
A plane goes down , 500 people dead , they do n't talk about it—'covid , covid , covid , covid . '
'' No , you have n't missed a plane crash that killed 500 people .
The most deadly plane crash during the pandemic killed less than 100 people , in Karachi , Pakistan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. are averaging more than 700 per day So they admitted that they 're not going to control the pandemic—hell , they 're not even trying , not that it has n't been apparent to all of us for months now—while Pence is out on the campaign trail despite five of his aides having tested positive .
Reporting shows coronavirus surges in several places where Trump has held rallies .
Several of Trump 's boosters at Fox News have been forced to quarantine after they were exposed to COVID-19 .
And Trump just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters to clap harder the whole thing will go away .
Eight days until the election and it sure does n't look like they 're going to succeed at changing the subject .

Donald Trump has been working hard to change the subject from the coronavirus pandemic, since his failure to control it is a major reason he is on track to lose on November 3. From that point of view, this was a very, very bad weekend for Trump. So bad.
First, five members of Mike Pence's staff tested positive, news that got out despite the White House's efforts to cover it up. Pence announced he would keep to his schedule because, get this, he's an essential worker. Pence is mostly campaigning these days, so that's the work being claimed as so essential he can't follow guidelines and quarantine after close contact with people who have COVID-19. Then White House chief of staff Mark Meadows went on TV Sunday morning and said, "We're not going to control the pandemic."
"We are going to control the fact that we get vaccines, therapeutics and other mitigations," Meadows continued. Those are in the future though. In the present, the seven-day average of new cases has doubled in the last six weeks, and hospitalizations are up.
"We're not going to control the pandemic." Let that one sink in.
"This wasn't a slip by Meadows; it was a candid acknowledgment of what President Trump's strategy has clearly been from the beginning of this crisis: to wave the white flag of defeat and hope that by ignoring it, the virus would simply go away," Joe Biden said in a statement. "It hasn't, and it won't."
Trump, meanwhile, is committed to increasing the 165 times he's downplayed the threat of the virus:
At a Saturday rally, he whined "Turn on television: 'covid, covid, covid, covid, covid.' A plane goes down, 500 people dead, they don't talk about it—'covid, covid, covid, covid.'" No, you haven't missed a plane crash that killed 500 people. The most deadly plane crash during the pandemic killed less than 100 people, in Karachi, Pakistan, in May. Coronavirus deaths in the U.S. are averaging more than 700 per day
So they admitted that they're not going to control the pandemic—hell, they're not even trying, not that it hasn't been apparent to all of us for months now—while Pence is out on the campaign trail despite five of his aides having tested positive. Reporting shows coronavirus surges in several places where Trump has held rallies. Several of Trump's boosters at Fox News have been forced to quarantine after they were exposed to COVID-19. And Trump just keeps on pretending if he gets his supporters to clap harder the whole thing will go away. Eight days until the election and it sure doesn't look like they're going to succeed at changing the subject.


alternet--2020-10-26--A letter to my neighbor, a churchgoing Trump supporter

How are you and your family ?
I hope this letter finds you each doing well despite the challenges the pandemic has presented .
What a year , right ?
Like some cosmic test to see how much we humans can handle .
Our family is good , thankfully , though I 've been out of work since May .
Less money , but more time for doing the things I love—like getting out the vote !
And this election season , due to Covid-19 , I am writing letters instead of knocking on doors .
Good ol ' snail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sign .
Maybe you noticed when I replaced my Bernie sign with a Biden/Harris sign a few months ago ?
I 'm wondering if you 'd be up for chatting politics again soon ?
Along with catching up with each other on all the other things in life of course !
I enjoyed those chats we had shortly after the 2016 election when we bumped into each other on the train we were taking across the country .
Such a small world !
You explained your reasons for voting for Trump then , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against that choice .
I was pleasantly surprised at how lovely and open our conversations were , at the mutual listening , and at how many things we actually agreed on .
It was refreshing , too , without social media and 24/7 partisan news blaring at us for those few days , how devoid our conversations were of vitriolic animosity .
We were just neighbors talking to each other !
But then I came home to my bubble , and drank too much from the constant stream of divisiveness .
I did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the fire relief shelter for a couple of weeks recently , where it was just humans helping humans .
That 's an interesting facet of disasters , do n't you think ?
Our personal politics swiftly fade into the background and we just pitch in and help each other .
The fire was such a tragedy .
Hundreds lost everything .
Their homes and everything inside reduced to ash and twisted metal .
We were fortunate the winds were n't blowing our direction that fateful day , but what about the day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another fire ?
I received another red flag warning just this morning .
Are you signed up for community safety alerts ?
What are your thoughts on climate change , and the cause of these horrific fires ?
Trump always wants to point to lack of forest management as being the cause , even though not all catastrophic fires , such as the recent fire here , are forest-centric .
I can agree that forests could be better managed , but what Trump does n't like to acknowledge is that the federal government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the forests on the West Coast .
Regardless of who needs to manage the forests , I believe the scientific evidence is clear : we are in the midst of a climate emergency , and fires are much more catastrophic now because of it .
Does this concern you as well ?
How our lives , right now , are being dramatically impacted by the effects of climate change ?
And how this will likely be a far worse situation for our grandchildren to deal with if we do n't take drastic measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's one of the number one issues we should be tackling .
Anyway , especially this year with Covid , I 've pretty much been glued to the various rectangular-shaped digital devices in my home .
And from my aghast perspective , Trump 's presidency has consisted of mostly four years of unhinged chaos , with so many continually mounting and multiplying absurdities I 've felt frozen in disbelief—like a deer-in-headlights-frozen—unsure the best way to respond .
It does n't usually bode well for a frozen deer , I know , so maybe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I 'm pretty sure that rule by chaos has been Trump 's primary modus operandi .
I admit my views may be polarized , though I do tune into Fox News occasionally , and try to read a wide variety of information to better understand all sides .
But I have n't done a very good job reaching out to people who have different viewpoints .
It 's one reason I 'm finally reaching out to you .
Hard to believe election day 2020 is already upon us .
I remember election day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three-month-old grandson was with me that day .
I felt bad that he had to listen to MSNBC 's Steve Kornacki and CNN 's John King as I frantically switched back and forth between channels for hours , versus my usual reading of Dr. Seuss stories and singing lullabies .
Though , considering I ca n't sing , maybe my grandson preferred Kornacki 's and King 's voices , lol !
How are your kids and grandkids doing ?
Have you been able to see them during this pandemic ?
What about your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know that was important to you ; have you found ways to do that safely ?
I mentioned on the train that I grew up in a religion where studying the bible and learning about Jesus was a big deal .
My views on religion and spirituality have changed over the years , but I still feel Jesus 's example was a good one to emulate , especially with those love your neighbor and love your enemies concepts .
That 's one of the things I 've found most perplexing about people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least wrap my mind around : what would Jesus think about Trump ?
No doubt he 'd show him love , but would he support him ?
I mean , my goodness , even before he was elected , Trump said he could stand on 5th Avenue and shoot someone and he still would n't lose any voters .
And if that was n't shocking enough , he next said that his fame allowed him to grab women by their pussy .
When we talked on the train , you agreed you did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you hoped he would make good on draining the swamp , standing up for the working class , and be like a bull in a china shop—disrupting the status quo of a government that seems ever farther from us ordinary citizens , and filled with people , many on both sides of the aisle , only bent on enriching themselves .
I agree with you on all three of those points and admit that after it was clear Trump would be president for at least the next four years , unless impeached and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you were correct and he would accomplish those tasks .
But it just does n't appear to have played out that way .
The following are just a few of the things that deeply concern me about Trump as president , and I 'm curious about your thoughts on them : • He has repeatedly insulted veterans and war heroes , even calling them suckers and losers • Russia offered bounties to the Taliban to kill American troops and coalition forces in Afghanistan .
Trump likely knew then and did nothing .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • He continually acts deferentially to authoritarians and dictators while at the same time thumbing his nose at our allies • Kowtowing to corporate interests , Trump and his administration have reversed nearly 100 environmental regulations designed to protect all of us , and future generations • He is loved by racists , goes on racist tirades , and refuses to call out white supremacy • His administration shot rubber bullets and canisters of toxic pepper spray at peaceful protesters outside the White House so that he could have a bible photo-op outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mariann Edgar Budde , leader of The Episcopal Diocese of Washington , strongly repudiated Trump 's photo-op , as did other religious leaders • In Trump 's world , citizens exercising their right to protest peacefully are `` anarchists , '' `` thugs , '' and `` animals . ''
In contrast , an armed militia storming Michigan 's capital to protest the stay-at-home order are `` very good people . ''
• He is a pathological liar , with over 20,000 lies documented since he took office • He continually makes false @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he might not accept the election outcome , nor will he commit to a peaceful transfer of power • There are thousands of documented instances of Trump seeking to enrich himself , his family members , and his companies • His nepotism and cronyism have only deepened and muddied the swamp rather than draining it • Many of the family , friends , and business acquaintances Trump has hired had zero experience for the positions they were hired for • Hundreds hired have resigned or have been dismissed , many under a cloud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ White House advisers have been criminally charged • Not only have many administration officials enjoyed using our dollars to enrich themselves , their lack of qualifications have been part of the reason for the catastrophic failure of the Trump Administration 's response to Covid-19 Trump 's response ( or lack of ) to Covid-19 requires a lengthier description .
For months following his swearing-in , he failed to fill hundreds of positions at the CDC , and other health organizations and efforts were also disbanded .
The following year , he shuttered the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which had been set up under Obama to prepare and prevent the next disease outbreak from becoming an epidemic or pandemic .
Trump has repeatedly downplayed the virus , in the beginning saying they had it `` totally under control '' and later saying : `` We 're going to be pretty soon at only five people .
And we could be at just one or two people over the next short period of time .
So we 've had very good luck . ''
After multiple studies proved the effectiveness of masks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mandate that likely would have saved thousands of lives .
But he refused to wear a mask or institute a mandate , and instead belittled mask wearers .
In so doing , he turned a health issue into a partisan and political issue that has had deadly consequences .
A Columbia University study published on October 22 says that anywhere from 130,000-210,000 Covid-19 deaths so far could have been prevented , and are directly attributable to Trump 's mishandling of the crisis .
A different study out of the University of Washington published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could save approximately 130,000 lives between now and the end of February 2021 .
When states urgently needed federal assistance to obtain critical PPE or ventilators , etc.
, Trump and his administration threatened to withhold aid to states because , according to Trump , `` It 's a two way street they have to treat us well . ''
And , according to Vanity Fair 's reporting , when the virus was hitting Democratic states the hardest , some on Jared Kushner 's team said it had been deemed unnecessary to go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : `` The political folks believed that because it was going to be relegated to Democratic states , that they could blame those governors , and that would be an effective political strategy . ''
In addition , unbelievably , in the middle of a pandemic , with almost nine million cases , and millions having lost their employer-provided healthcare ( Medicare for All , please ) , the Trump Administration 's efforts to kill the ACA are intensifying , and there is no plan for replacing it if he succeeds .
Now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ corner . ''
We never did get down to five people .
And yeah , eight months later , we are turning the corner all right .
.
.
and hurtling towards 9 million cases and 300,000 deaths , with scientific models suggesting we are in for far worse .
And now the administration has apparently given up on trying to control the virus .
In 2001 , we went to war ( not that I agreed with it ) to avenge the deaths of the nearly 3000 lives lost on 9/11 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote for a man who is so far directly responsible for , at the very minimum , 130,000 lives ?
I just do n't get it .
Maybe you can help explain it to me .
And then there 's the inhumane separation of children from their families at the border .
Children were put in cages !
Some of them so young they had n't even learned to speak yet .
Yes , thankfully , Trump ended his cruel zero-tolerance policy that separated families , but now , two years later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the families of 545 of the children ?
These families were trying to come here to escape horrific living situations , hoping for a safer/better life .
How did we go from being a beacon of hope and welcoming the huddled masses , to a country known for separating families and caging children ?
I mean , really , what would Jesus say to all these things ?
I am heartened to see that many religious leaders are calling for voters to support Biden/Harris , but how do you and your fellow church @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump , how do you reconcile your religious beliefs against the fact he does not come anywhere close to emulating Jesus ?
Maybe you support Trump because of the economy ?
I keep hearing that about his supporters .
I do n't know a helluva lot about the workings of economics , but I 've read a few things that suggest we ordinary citizens are n't much better off under Trump .
Especially when things such as higher tariffs are eating away at any small temporary gains we might have gotten from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wealthy and corporations .
Or maybe it is because you align as pro-life ?
For the record , if that 's true I do n't hate you for that .
I know that it 's continuously pounded into everyone 's head that Democrats , specifically liberals , want the right to kill babies right up until the time of birth , but this just is n't true .
The data shows that most Americans ' views on abortion lie somewhere in the middle , and the truth is , abortion is a complicated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the powers that benefit from us hating each other .
Yes , I align predominantly as left/progressive , though I 've long resisted labels designed to pigeonhole us or keep us divided .
It might surprise you to learn , for instance , that I 'm not a huge fan of abortion .
It does n't mean I 'm hoping for an overturn of Roe v. Wade ; it just means I see the issue as far more complex than merely for or against abortion .
Some would probably call this next idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if we were to get together in our communities across the country and discuss the abortion issue with skilled facilitators ?
With all views being shared and debated calmly , thoughtfully , and compassionately ?
Not only would this help us to learn from each other , and humanize our views versus demonize them , I believe we could shape and agree on policies that would go much farther towards making abortion a more rare choice , while—at the same time—honoring a woman 's right to make decisions about her own body .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ better access to healthcare and birth control , and changing the tone of education and the conversation , would go a long way towards preventing unwanted pregnancies .
In this vein , and looking up more information just now , I ran across an interesting pro-life viewpoint on the election at Pro Life Evangelicals For Biden : Knowing that the most common reason women give for abortion is the financial difficulty of another child , we appreciate a number of Democratic proposals that would significantly alleviate that financial burden : accessible health services @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a minimum wage that lifts workers out of poverty .
Notably , they end their argument : `` We believe , that on balance , Joe Biden 's policies are more consistent with the biblically shaped ethic of life than those of Donald Trump .
Therefore , even as we continue to urge different policies on abortion , we urge evangelicals to elect Joe Biden as president . ''
And what if we get together in our communities and discuss the 2nd Amendment ?
Again , given the proper atmosphere—and absent NRA lobbyists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we could design policies that adhere to our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms , while also including some common-sense protections that safeguard the innocent .
After all , is n't that one of the primary things we are all trying to achieve ?
The ability to protect ourselves and our family ?
Doing another online search here ( yeah , I love going online and looking things up ! )
, I typed in `` Americans ' views on guns '' and found a fascinating TIME magazine piece about an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from all sides of the gun issue .
It was n't a study setting out to change laws , it was about humanizing people on both sides and helping them to hear each other .
One woman , for example , went from calling liberals `` Dumb idiot morons '' to considering all of the participants , including the liberals , `` friends for life . ''
What if we start there ?
Are you still with me ?
Sorry .
Guess I kind of went off .
Isolation will do that to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I 'm just passionate about these issues and trying to help facilitate people coming together to create solutions that work for the benefit of all .
I 'll wrap up here with a quote I ran across the other day .
It was posted on a church website , written by a poet named Eric Overby .
`` The only way we will love our neighbor as ourselves is by getting to know our neighbors , even in the midst of our differences . ''
I love that .
Let me know if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the park in the next day or two .
Be great to see you , and hear your thoughts on all of this .
In the event we ca n't get together until after the election , can I ask a favor ?
If you have n't already voted , will you please at least consider voting Biden/Harris ?
Because I am deeply concerned that another four years of Trump would be catastrophic for our country .
Debi Smith -- wife , mother , grandmother , and concerned American and human being traveling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a sunbeam -- writes from her home in Ashland , Oregon .
She welcomes your thoughtful comments , and ideas about how we can come together in search of common ground , at debi @ mind.net

by Debi Smith
Hi neighbor!
How are you and your family? I hope this letter finds you each doing well despite the challenges the pandemic has presented. What a year, right? Like some cosmic test to see how much we humans can handle.
Our family is good, thankfully, though I've been out of work since May. Less money, but more time for doing the things I love—like getting out the vote! And this election season, due to Covid-19, I am writing letters instead of knocking on doors. Good ol' snail mail!
(Hopefully you get this letter soon, considering the cuts to the USPS that happened after Trump installed one of his donors who then set about a restructuring, which a federal judge in September described as: "an intentional effort on the part of the current administration to disrupt and challenge the legitimacy of upcoming local, state and federal elections.")
I did notice your Trump/Pence sign. Maybe you noticed when I replaced my Bernie sign with a Biden/Harris sign a few months ago? I'm wondering if you'd be up for chatting politics again soon? Along with catching up with each other on all the other things in life of course!
I enjoyed those chats we had shortly after the 2016 election when we bumped into each other on the train we were taking across the country. Such a small world! You explained your reasons for voting for Trump then, and I explained some of my reasoning against that choice. I was pleasantly surprised at how lovely and open our conversations were, at the mutual listening, and at how many things we actually agreed on.
It was refreshing, too, without social media and 24/7 partisan news blaring at us for those few days, how devoid our conversations were of vitriolic animosity. We were just neighbors talking to each other!
But then I came home to my bubble, and drank too much from the constant stream of divisiveness. I did take a break from it while volunteering at the fire relief shelter for a couple of weeks recently, where it was just humans helping humans. That's an interesting facet of disasters, don't you think? Our personal politics swiftly fade into the background and we just pitch in and help each other.
The fire was such a tragedy. Hundreds lost everything. Their homes and everything inside reduced to ash and twisted metal. We were fortunate the winds weren't blowing our direction that fateful day, but what about the day when they are, and there's another fire? I received another red flag warning just this morning. Are you signed up for community safety alerts?
What are your thoughts on climate change, and the cause of these horrific fires? Trump always wants to point to lack of forest management as being the cause, even though not all catastrophic fires, such as the recent fire here, are forest-centric. I can agree that forests could be better managed, but what Trump doesn't like to acknowledge is that the federal government is in charge of nearly half of the forests on the West Coast.
Regardless of who needs to manage the forests, I believe the scientific evidence is clear: we are in the midst of a climate emergency, and fires are much more catastrophic now because of it. Does this concern you as well? How our lives, right now, are being dramatically impacted by the effects of climate change? And how this will likely be a far worse situation for our grandchildren to deal with if we don't take drastic measures now? Personally, I believe it's one of the number one issues we should be tackling.
Anyway, especially this year with Covid, I've pretty much been glued to the various rectangular-shaped digital devices in my home. And from my aghast perspective, Trump's presidency has consisted of mostly four years of unhinged chaos, with so many continually mounting and multiplying absurdities I've felt frozen in disbelief—like a deer-in-headlights-frozen—unsure the best way to respond. It doesn't usually bode well for a frozen deer, I know, so maybe a poor analogy, but again, I'm pretty sure that rule by chaos has been Trump's primary modus operandi.
I admit my views may be polarized, though I do tune into Fox News occasionally, and try to read a wide variety of information to better understand all sides. But I haven't done a very good job reaching out to people who have different viewpoints. It's one reason I'm finally reaching out to you.
Hard to believe election day 2020 is already upon us. I remember election day 2016 so clearly, partly because my three-month-old grandson was with me that day. I felt bad that he had to listen to MSNBC's Steve Kornacki and CNN's John King as I frantically switched back and forth between channels for hours, versus my usual reading of Dr. Seuss stories and singing lullabies. Though, considering I can't sing, maybe my grandson preferred Kornacki's and King's voices, lol!
How are your kids and grandkids doing? Have you been able to see them during this pandemic? What about your involvement together at the church? I know that was important to you; have you found ways to do that safely?
I mentioned on the train that I grew up in a religion where studying the bible and learning about Jesus was a big deal. My views on religion and spirituality have changed over the years, but I still feel Jesus's example was a good one to emulate, especially with those love your neighbor and love your enemies concepts.
That's one of the things I've found most perplexing about people who support Trump, the issue I can least wrap my mind around: what would Jesus think about Trump? No doubt he'd show him love, but would he support him? I mean, my goodness, even before he was elected, Trump said he could stand on 5th Avenue and shoot someone and he still wouldn't lose any voters. And if that wasn't shocking enough, he next said that his fame allowed him to grab women by their pussy.
When we talked on the train, you agreed you didn't necessarily like Trump's vulgarity but you hoped he would make good on draining the swamp, standing up for the working class, and be like a bull in a china shop—disrupting the status quo of a government that seems ever farther from us ordinary citizens, and filled with people, many on both sides of the aisle, only bent on enriching themselves.
I agree with you on all three of those points and admit that after it was clear Trump would be president for at least the next four years, unless impeached and removed from office, I hoped maybe you were correct and he would accomplish those tasks. But it just doesn't appear to have played out that way.
The following are just a few of the things that deeply concern me about Trump as president, and I'm curious about your thoughts on them:
Trump's response (or lack of ) to Covid-19 requires a lengthier description. For months following his swearing-in, he failed to fill hundreds of positions at the CDC, and other health organizations and efforts were also disbanded. The following year, he shuttered the White House Global Health Security office, which had been set up under Obama to prepare and prevent the next disease outbreak from becoming an epidemic or pandemic.
Trump has repeatedly downplayed the virus, in the beginning saying they had it "totally under control" and later saying: "We're going to be pretty soon at only five people. And we could be at just one or two people over the next short period of time. So we've had very good luck."
After multiple studies proved the effectiveness of masks, Trump could have instituted a mask mandate that likely would have saved thousands of lives. But he refused to wear a mask or institute a mandate, and instead belittled mask wearers. In so doing, he turned a health issue into a partisan and political issue that has had deadly consequences.
A Columbia University study published on October 22 says that anywhere from 130,000-210,000 Covid-19 deaths so far could have been prevented, and are directly attributable to Trump's mishandling of the crisis. A different study out of the University of Washington published the following day suggests that universal mask-wearing could save approximately 130,000 lives between now and the end of February 2021.
When states urgently needed federal assistance to obtain critical PPE or ventilators, etc., Trump and his administration threatened to withhold aid to states because, according to Trump, "It's a two way street they have to treat us well."
And, according to Vanity Fair's reporting, when the virus was hitting Democratic states the hardest, some on Jared Kushner's team said it had been deemed unnecessary to go forward with a national testing plan because: "The political folks believed that because it was going to be relegated to Democratic states, that they could blame those governors, and that would be an effective political strategy."
In addition, unbelievably, in the middle of a pandemic, with almost nine million cases, and millions having lost their employer-provided healthcare (Medicare for All, please), the Trump Administration's efforts to kill the ACA are intensifying, and there is no plan for replacing it if he succeeds.
Now Trump says we are "turning the corner."
We never did get down to five people. And yeah, eight months later, we are turning the corner all right . . . and hurtling towards 9 million cases and 300,000 deaths, with scientific models suggesting we are in for far worse.
And now the administration has apparently given up on trying to control the virus.
In 2001, we went to war (not that I agreed with it) to avenge the deaths of the nearly 3000 lives lost on 9/11. And in 2020, we are invited to vote for a man who is so far directly responsible for, at the very minimum, 130,000 lives? I just don't get it. Maybe you can help explain it to me.
And then there's the inhumane separation of children from their families at the border. Children were put in cages! Some of them so young they hadn't even learned to speak yet. Yes, thankfully, Trump ended his cruel zero-tolerance policy that separated families, but now, two years later, authorities have been unable to locate the families of 545 of the children? These families were trying to come here to escape horrific living situations, hoping for a safer/better life. How did we go from being a beacon of hope and welcoming the huddled masses, to a country known for separating families and caging children?
I mean, really, what would Jesus say to all these things?
I am heartened to see that many religious leaders are calling for voters to support Biden/Harris, but how do you and your fellow church members feel? And if still supporting Trump, how do you reconcile your religious beliefs against the fact he does not come anywhere close to emulating Jesus?
Maybe you support Trump because of the economy? I keep hearing that about his supporters. I don't know a helluva lot about the workings of economics, but I've read a few things that suggest we ordinary citizens aren't much better off under Trump. Especially when things such as higher tariffs are eating away at any small temporary gains we might have gotten from the tax cuts, which mostly benefit the wealthy and corporations.
Or maybe it is because you align as pro-life? For the record, if that's true I don't hate you for that. I know that it's continuously pounded into everyone's head that Democrats, specifically liberals, want the right to kill babies right up until the time of birth, but this just isn't true. The data shows that most Americans' views on abortion lie somewhere in the middle, and the truth is, abortion is a complicated issue that comes in quite handy for the powers that benefit from us hating each other.
Yes, I align predominantly as left/progressive, though I've long resisted labels designed to pigeonhole us or keep us divided. It might surprise you to learn, for instance, that I'm not a huge fan of abortion. It doesn't mean I'm hoping for an overturn of Roe v. Wade; it just means I see the issue as far more complex than merely for or against abortion.
Some would probably call this next idea "too simplistic," but what if we were to get together in our communities across the country and discuss the abortion issue with skilled facilitators? With all views being shared and debated calmly, thoughtfully, and compassionately? Not only would this help us to learn from each other, and humanize our views versus demonize them, I believe we could shape and agree on policies that would go much farther towards making abortion a more rare choice, while—at the same time—honoring a woman's right to make decisions about her own body.
Let's get real, more and better access to healthcare and birth control, and changing the tone of education and the conversation, would go a long way towards preventing unwanted pregnancies.
In this vein, and looking up more information just now, I ran across an interesting pro-life viewpoint on the election at Pro Life Evangelicals For Biden:
Knowing that the most common reason women give for abortion is the financial difficulty of another child, we appreciate a number of Democratic proposals that would significantly alleviate that financial burden: accessible health services for all citizens, affordable childcare, a minimum wage that lifts workers out of poverty.
Notably, they end their argument: "We believe, that on balance, Joe Biden's policies are more consistent with the biblically shaped ethic of life than those of Donald Trump. Therefore, even as we continue to urge different policies on abortion, we urge evangelicals to elect Joe Biden as president."
And what if we get together in our communities and discuss the 2nd Amendment? Again, given the proper atmosphere—and absent NRA lobbyists and NRA-backed members of Congress—I believe that we could design policies that adhere to our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, while also including some common-sense protections that safeguard the innocent. After all, isn't that one of the primary things we are all trying to achieve? The ability to protect ourselves and our family?
Doing another online search here (yeah, I love going online and looking things up!), I typed in "Americans' views on guns" and found a fascinating TIME magazine piece about an experiment conducted in 2018 with 21 people from all sides of the gun issue. It wasn't a study setting out to change laws, it was about humanizing people on both sides and helping them to hear each other. One woman, for example, went from calling liberals "Dumb idiot morons" to considering all of the participants, including the liberals, "friends for life." What if we start there?
Are you still with me? Sorry. Guess I kind of went off. Isolation will do that to you! Not trying to offend, I'm just passionate about these issues and trying to help facilitate people coming together to create solutions that work for the benefit of all.
I'll wrap up here with a quote I ran across the other day. It was posted on a church website, written by a poet named Eric Overby. "The only way we will love our neighbor as ourselves is by getting to know our neighbors, even in the midst of our differences." I love that.
Let me know if you're up for a socially-distanced-masked-meet-up at the park in the next day or two. Be great to see you, and hear your thoughts on all of this. In the event we can't get together until after the election, can I ask a favor? If you haven't already voted, will you please at least consider voting Biden/Harris? Because I am deeply concerned that another four years of Trump would be catastrophic for our country.
Take care,
Your neighbor
Debi Smith -- wife, mother, grandmother, and concerned American and human being traveling aboard this small mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam--writes from her home in Ashland, Oregon. She welcomes your thoughtful comments, and ideas about how we can come together in search of common ground, at debi@mind.net