alternet--2020-11-01--Here's why Bush v. Gore still matters in 2020

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom .
Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox .
Twenty years after the Supreme Court decision known as Bush v. Gore effectively decided a presidential election , it 's back on the country 's mind .
President Donald Trump , who is lagging in polls amid a surge in COVID-19 cases and refuses to commit to leaving office quietly should his bid for reelection fail , has said he believes the Supreme Court will intervene in the upcoming election to hand him a second @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justify rushing the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett , who was sworn in as a justice on Monday and could potentially break a 4-4 tie .
Lawyers representing the president 's campaign and the Republican Party have taken to citing Bush v. Gore frequently in preelection court filings .
And the case 's echoes are only underscored by the presence of three current justices — Chief Justice John Roberts , Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh — each of whom worked for the Republicans in the 2000 ballot recount battles in Florida that culminated in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got agitated this week when Kavanaugh , appointed by Trump in 2018 , included a nearly page-long disquisition on Bush v. Gore in an opinion explaining his vote not to reinstate a six-day buffer after Election Day for mail-in ballots , which are expected to lean heavily Democratic , to arrive at election offices in Wisconsin .
Then , only two days later , Democrats were cheered by the news that the court had let stand , at least for now , post-Election Day buffer periods in two other key swing states , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a conservative court handing the presidency to Trump seemed that much more distant a prospect .
However , opinions by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch appended to Wednesday 's decisions , when read together with Kavanaugh 's opinion , suggest more is afoot .
Bush v. Gore is poised for a revival at the high court .
That will probably occur in a different scenario than what happened in 2000 .
The election forecaster FiveThirtyEight projects only a 4 % chance of the election being decided by a recount .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dead letter it 's popularly perceived to be , and it could be a factor in a number of election battles this year .
Before 2020 , the Supreme Court had mentioned the case only once in two decades .
But in the state courts and lower federal courts , it 's quietly but repeatedly taken on new roles over the years , serving to resolve everything from how ballot signatures are reviewed to the deadline for mail-in ballots to reach election officials .
This election cycle , with the help of Kavanaugh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a welter of GOP lawyers pushing to take Bush v. Gore in a new direction , the case is undergoing a radical transformation .
If completed , legal scholars believe , that transformation will have far-reaching and deleterious consequences for efforts to expand voting rights .
By the early morning hours after Election Day 2000 , it was clear that the election contest between the Republican candidate , George W. Bush , and the Democrat , Al Gore , would come down to Florida 's 25 electoral votes .
With Bush up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ margin , Gore moved to have machine-tabulated ballots manually recounted .
Weeks of legal wrangling ensued , with litigation pingponging around various Florida state courts , twice reaching the U.S. Supreme Court .
Eventually , the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide manual recount but offered little guidance to ballot counters other than that they had to discern the “ clear intent of the voter . ''
Many Florida counties used punch card ballots at the time , and some Floridians failed to fully punch out the paper tab , called a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
New phrases entered the American lexicon : “ hanging chads '' ( partially detached ) , “ dimpled chads '' ( indented but not detached ) and so on .
With an important mid-December deadline approaching , Bush 's lawyers asked the Supreme Court to intervene .
Late on a Tuesday , just hours ahead of the deadline , the court , by a 5-4 vote , put a stop to the Florida recount , all but declaring Bush the next president .
In an unsigned opinion , five of the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Florida Supreme Court 's recount rules were vague and inconsistent , resulting in “ arbitrary and disparate treatment '' of ballots .
So , for example , counters in Miami-Dade County might deem a particular hanging chad a vote for president while counters in Palm Beach County might not .
The Constitution gives broad discretion to state legislatures to decide how to appoint the electors it sends to the electoral college .
The Bush v. Gore majority held that the Florida recount procedures violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the state not “ value one person 's vote over that of another . ''
On this point there was broad agreement ; two justices from the court 's liberal wing , Stephen Breyer and David Souter , largely agreed with the five conservatives .
The question remained : what to do about it ?
Souter and Breyer thought the U.S. Supreme Court should do what it would usually do and send the case back to the Florida Supreme Court with instructions for how to cure the problem .
The five conservatives , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enough time left to fix the recount process and complete it .
Two decades later , their reasoning remains the subject of widespread criticism .
( The late Justice Antonin Scalia joined the majority opinion but privately called the equal protection rationale , “ as we say in Brooklyn , a piece of shit , '' according to “ First , '' a well regarded 2019 biography of retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor . )
In essence , the majority read into an earlier Florida Supreme Court ruling the suggestion that the Florida @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mid-December deadline .
The prevailing view has been no .
In that interpretation , Bush v. Gore is a one-off that judges and lawyers are free to ignore .
A binding precedent , by contrast , requires that lower courts ( and the high court itself ) abide by it .
Despite that view , the ruling 's influence appears to be very much alive : It has been cited in hundreds of federal and state cases , dating from the years just after the 2000 election to this week .
How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most often quoted sentence in Bush v. Gore : “ Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances , for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities . ''
The not-precedent camp points to the first clause as dispositive .
But others insist the second clause is every bit as important as the first , and if read in that way , the sentence sounds not so much like a disavowal of future relevance as a word of caution for other judges : Do n't apply the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be sensitive to the facts of the case .
Disagreements over whether Bush v. Gore should be considered a precedent are widespread , including in federal courts .
For example , judges on the federal appellate court in Cincinnati decided in 2003 that Bush v. Gore was precedent “ we are bound to adhere to . ''
Thirteen years later , another set of judges on that same court dismissed the opinion as “ non-precedential . ''
Still other judges split the difference , like one on the appeals court in Richmond this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ of limited precedential value . ''
For a case that 's widely regarded as an aberration , Bush v. Gore has done all right for itself outside the U.S. Supreme Court .
Not only has it been cited well over a hundred times by state supreme courts and federal courts of appeals , that tally grows to about 500 when lower courts are included — from litigation over the 2003 vote to recall California Gov .
Gray Davis to this year 's court battle over felon reenfranchisement in Florida .
That means @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could reprise its role this year at the center of the resolution of the presidential race , should , say , Pennsylvania become to 2020 what Florida was for 2000 .
( Indeed , the case has already been raised as part of the ongoing litigation about how to handle mail-in ballots in the state . )
It could also help decide the outcome of other key races , a particularly consequential possibility given that control of the Senate is at stake this year .
In 2008 , for example , Norm Coleman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , tried to use Bush v. Gore to challenge the process by which election officials decided whether absentee ballots were valid .
He was unsuccessful , and his Democratic opponent , the comedian Al Franken , ultimately won the seat .
Over the past two decades , Bush v. Gore has evolved beyond the partisan identity it maintains in the public imagination .
An examination of judicial decisions and court filings in more than 150 cases suggests its invocation wo n't necessarily benefit one party or the other .
The ruling has continued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , guiding judicial oversight of ballot recounts .
That makes it an inviting tool for a president who has repeatedly mused publicly about halting vote tabulations after Election Day .
But the case could just as soon help speed along a recount , as the president has seen firsthand in November 2016 , when Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein petitioned for a recount of votes cast in Michigan , a state Trump then appeared to have won by only a few thousand votes .
Stein 's recount did n't change the outcome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relied in part on Bush v. Gore to ensure the recount got done on time , ruling in favor of Stein 's request to waive a waiting period mandated by state law before beginning a recount .
The delay , they reasoned , might prevent the state from completing the recount ahead of a key federal deadline .
Once a state grants a right to a recount , a federal appeals judge wrote , “ the State could not use arbitrary or unreasonable procedural rules to make that right a nullity . ''
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ contradictory ways in different cases , both to disqualify large numbers of ballots or to ensure that ballots are n't arbitrarily rejected .
Just after the 2018 election , for example , Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson 's reelection campaign and a state Democratic Party committee filed a federal lawsuit challenging the way Florida election officials verified signatures on vote-by-mail and provisional ballots .
When a state lets residents vote by mail , the campaign 's legal team argued in a filing that relied on Bush v. Gore , the Equal Protection Clause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters into a procedurally arbitrary vote-by-mail trap that results in their disenfranchisement . ''
In response to Nelson 's suit , the courts bemoaned “ Florida 's lack of any standards or formal training requirements '' for those who assess ballot signatures , as well as the state 's failure to notify some Floridians in time to fix improperly rejected ballots .
A judge ordered the state to give those voters until 11 days after the election to submit affidavits and proof of identity so their votes would count .
( Despite that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and lost his seat . )
On the other side of the partisan divide , GOP lawyers this year are deploying Bush v. Gore aggressively .
Attorneys for Republican legislators in North Carolina , for instance , recently argued that a state elections board plan to extend the period of time that officials could accept ballots postmarked by Election Day violated Bush v. Gore .
In essence , they claimed that the case permitted their clients to use the Equal Protection Clause as a tool to reduce the number of eligible voters who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full appeals court rejected the argument , with one of the judges in the majority calling the plaintiffs ' argument “ deeply troubling . ''
The plaintiffs had suffered no harm , she wrote , and their sole aim was to reduce the number of eligible voters allowed to legally cast their ballot .
( Three of the court 's more conservative judges wrote a dissent agreeing with the plaintiffs .
On Wednesday , the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request to temporarily block the extension . )
There 's more of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lawsuit filed in Nevada by the Trump campaign and the state Republican Party argues that the state runs afoul of Bush v. Gore because it offers a way to challenge in-person voters but fails to offer a mechanism for challenging voters who send their ballot through the mail , a potential opening salvo in an attack on mail-in voting in an important swing state .
Bush v. Gore and the Ghost of William Rehnquist Until recently , Bush v. Gore 's ongoing influence on federal elections has been fairly quiet , adapting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an incremental , case-by-case manner .
It now seems on the verge of a metamorphosis .
In recent years , Bush v. Gore — or , more precisely , a side note in it , a line of reasoning that indisputably is without precedential effect — has begun to gain currency among conservative jurists and election lawyers .
In the past week , four members of the Supreme Court 's conservative wing became advocates for the cause , seeking to transform a long-marginal idea into the law of the land .
Should a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinking , the court 's new right-leaning supermajority will have near-total power over courtroom efforts to shape federal elections — a set of circumstances that election law scholars and voting rights lawyers fear could seriously hinder efforts to expand the franchise in the United States .
Separate from the unsigned majority opinion in Bush v. Gore , the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist , joined by Scalia and Thomas , authored a concurring opinion offering “ additional grounds '' for putting an end to the Florida ballot recount .
Ordinarily , when a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of state law , that state court decision ca n't be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court , an outgrowth of the federal system in the United States .
In his concurrence , however , Rehnquist claimed to have identified an exception to this rule in the context of state laws governing presidential elections .
In that context , Rehnquist wrote , the U.S. Supreme Court , in fact , could second-guess a state supreme court 's interpretation of its own state 's election law .
Rehnquist 's argument hinged on a narrow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Electors Clause , which says , “ Each State shall appoint , in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct , '' the electors that vote for the president and vice president .
In the chief justice 's view , the Constitution gave state legislatures exclusive authority to run presidential elections , and when , as in Florida in 2000 , a state court ( or governor ) interfered in the election laws passed by the legislature , that runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution , which means that the federal Supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state legislature 's power over how the state runs its presidential elections .
The dissenting justices expressed puzzlement and incredulity at Rehnquist 's unusual reading of the Presidential Electors Clause .
By his logic , they observed , a state legislature was unconstrained by its state constitution when prescribing laws related to presidential elections .
The Supreme Court 's own precedents , the late Justice John Paul Stevens wrote , rejected Rehnquist 's interpretation .
“ Legislature '' in the Presidential Electors Clause , he wrote , meant the state legislature acting in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a gubernatorial veto and the state constitution as interpreted by the courts , not as an all-powerful synod .
This week , Rehnquist 's theory not only received the imprimatur of four sitting justices ; it saw its scope expand .
First , on Monday , came Kavanaugh 's riff on Bush v. Gore in his concurrence in the Wisconsin vote-by-mail extension case .
It excavated Rehnquist 's theory and held it out as the correct reading of the Constitution .
It was an odd place for Kavanaugh to articulate his pro-Rehnquist thesis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was entirely irrelevant to the Wisconsin case .
The Wisconsin case was appealed from a federal court , not a state court , and there 's no question the U.S. Supreme Court has the power to review the decisions of lower federal courts .
Kavanaugh 's footnote suggested he was eager to convey his point of view out into the world , possibly to encourage future litigants to present the court with opportunities to elevate Rehnquist 's concurrence to the level of precedent .
That signal may not be necessary .
Throughout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already doing just that .
No other justice joined Kavanaugh 's concurrence , but just two days later , three of them would join him in extolling the virtues of Rehnquist 's theory .
On Wednesday , the Supreme Court declined to roll back similar vote-by-mail buffer periods in two other swing states , North Carolina and Pennsylvania .
Unlike in Wisconsin , the extensions of time were authorized by state courts relying on state law , the kind of decision over which the federal Supreme Court ordinarily has no authority .
Given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this year , Democrats celebrated the outcome .
The festivities , however , were muted .
Accompanying each order was a lengthy statement signed by some or all of justices unhappy about the outcome — Alito , Gorsuch and Thomas — and warning that the cases might not be over yet .
Both statements declared their support for adopting Rehnquist 's Bush v. Gore concurrence and went further still , indicating that , within state government , the legislature also has exclusive control over congressional elections .
( The Constitution authorizes Congress to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ written by Alito , which was appended to the Pennsylvania order , suggested that the Supreme Court might yet intervene after the election , potentially rejecting some large number of ballots that were mailed by Election Day but that arrived at election offices within the three day buffer period .
The more realistic reason for Bush v. Gore to alarm Democrats is that the Supreme Court 's four most conservative justices — Alito , Gorsuch , Kavanaugh and Thomas — seem to be champing at the bit to cut state courts out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have increasingly shown hostility to expanded voting rights , even during a pandemic , '' said Rick Hasen , an election law expert at the University of California , Irvine School of Law .
The approach embodied in the Rehnquist concurrence , known to lawyers as the independent state legislature doctrine , is one of many tools “ that is making it harder for other actors to protect voting rights . ''
Can they get a fifth justice on their side ?
Barrett 's views are n't yet known , but Roberts does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory .
This Monday , in a brief opinion , the chief justice distinguished the situation in Wisconsin , where a federal court had modified election rules , and in Pennsylvania , where the state supreme court had done so , relying on “ the authority of state courts to apply their own constitutions to election regulations . ''
Still , other courts are running with the interpretation favored by the four conservative justices .
On Thursday , a federal appeals court voted 2-1 to order Minnesota to separate late-arriving mail-in ballots , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was likely illegal .
Their reasoning ?
Plucked more or less straight from Kavanaugh 's Wisconsin concurrence .
Rehnquist 's theory poses greater risks to Democrats than Republicans , at least in the near term .
Over the past decade or so , Republicans have done an impressive job of taking over state legislatures .
In the key swing states of North Carolina and Pennsylvania , there is a Democratic governor , a liberal majority on the state supreme court , and a Republican-controlled legislature .
Biden 's lawyers surely would prefer their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ states than in a U.S. Supreme Court that 's more conservative than it 's been in decades .

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
Twenty years after the Supreme Court decision known as Bush v. Gore effectively decided a presidential election, it's back on the country's mind. President Donald Trump, who is lagging in polls amid a surge in COVID-19 cases and refuses to commit to leaving office quietly should his bid for reelection fail, has said he believes the Supreme Court will intervene in the upcoming election to hand him a second term. He cited that role to justify rushing the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, who was sworn in as a justice on Monday and could potentially break a 4-4 tie. Lawyers representing the president's campaign and the Republican Party have taken to citing Bush v. Gore frequently in preelection court filings. And the case's echoes are only underscored by the presence of three current justices — Chief Justice John Roberts, Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh — each of whom worked for the Republicans in the 2000 ballot recount battles in Florida that culminated in the historic Supreme Court decision.
Democrats got agitated this week when Kavanaugh, appointed by Trump in 2018, included a nearly page-long disquisition on Bush v. Gore in an opinion explaining his vote not to reinstate a six-day buffer after Election Day for mail-in ballots, which are expected to lean heavily Democratic, to arrive at election offices in Wisconsin. Then, only two days later, Democrats were cheered by the news that the court had let stand, at least for now, post-Election Day buffer periods in two other key swing states, Pennsylvania and North Carolina. The notion of a conservative court handing the presidency to Trump seemed that much more distant a prospect.
However, opinions by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch appended to Wednesday's decisions, when read together with Kavanaugh's opinion, suggest more is afoot. Bush v. Gore is poised for a revival at the high court. That will probably occur in a different scenario than what happened in 2000. The election forecaster FiveThirtyEight projects only a 4% chance of the election being decided by a recount.
But Bush v. Gore has never been the dead letter it's popularly perceived to be, and it could be a factor in a number of election battles this year. Before 2020, the Supreme Court had mentioned the case only once in two decades. But in the state courts and lower federal courts, it's quietly but repeatedly taken on new roles over the years, serving to resolve everything from how ballot signatures are reviewed to the deadline for mail-in ballots to reach election officials. This election cycle, with the help of Kavanaugh, Alito and Gorsuch, as well as a welter of GOP lawyers pushing to take Bush v. Gore in a new direction, the case is undergoing a radical transformation. If completed, legal scholars believe, that transformation will have far-reaching and deleterious consequences for efforts to expand voting rights.
What Was Bush v. Gore?
By the early morning hours after Election Day 2000, it was clear that the election contest between the Republican candidate, George W. Bush, and the Democrat, Al Gore, would come down to Florida's 25 electoral votes. With Bush up in the state by a very thin margin, Gore moved to have machine-tabulated ballots manually recounted. Weeks of legal wrangling ensued, with litigation pingponging around various Florida state courts, twice reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. Eventually, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide manual recount but offered little guidance to ballot counters other than that they had to discern the “clear intent of the voter." Many Florida counties used punch card ballots at the time, and some Floridians failed to fully punch out the paper tab, called a “chad," leaving their votes unclear. New phrases entered the American lexicon: “hanging chads" (partially detached), “dimpled chads" (indented but not detached) and so on.
With an important mid-December deadline approaching, Bush's lawyers asked the Supreme Court to intervene. Late on a Tuesday, just hours ahead of the deadline, the court, by a 5-4 vote, put a stop to the Florida recount, all but declaring Bush the next president. In an unsigned opinion, five of the court's more conservative justices found that the Florida Supreme Court's recount rules were vague and inconsistent, resulting in “arbitrary and disparate treatment" of ballots. So, for example, counters in Miami-Dade County might deem a particular hanging chad a vote for president while counters in Palm Beach County might not.
The Constitution gives broad discretion to state legislatures to decide how to appoint the electors it sends to the electoral college. The Bush v. Gore majority held that the Florida recount procedures violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which requires that the state not “value one person's vote over that of another." On this point there was broad agreement; two justices from the court's liberal wing, Stephen Breyer and David Souter, largely agreed with the five conservatives.
The question remained: what to do about it? Souter and Breyer thought the U.S. Supreme Court should do what it would usually do and send the case back to the Florida Supreme Court with instructions for how to cure the problem. The five conservatives, however, decided that there wasn't enough time left to fix the recount process and complete it. Two decades later, their reasoning remains the subject of widespread criticism. (The late Justice Antonin Scalia joined the majority opinion but privately called the equal protection rationale, “as we say in Brooklyn, a piece of shit," according to “First," a well regarded 2019 biography of retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.) In essence, the majority read into an earlier Florida Supreme Court ruling the suggestion that the Florida Legislature wanted the vote count finalized before the mid-December deadline.
Is Bush v. Gore Precedent?
The prevailing view has been no. In that interpretation, Bush v. Gore is a one-off that judges and lawyers are free to ignore. A binding precedent, by contrast, requires that lower courts (and the high court itself) abide by it.
Despite that view, the ruling's influence appears to be very much alive: It has been cited in hundreds of federal and state cases, dating from the years just after the 2000 election to this week. How can these dueling interpretations coexist? Consider the most often quoted sentence in Bush v. Gore: “Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." The not-precedent camp points to the first clause as dispositive. But others insist the second clause is every bit as important as the first, and if read in that way, the sentence sounds not so much like a disavowal of future relevance as a word of caution for other judges: Don't apply the court's analyses in rote fashion; be sensitive to the facts of the case.
Disagreements over whether Bush v. Gore should be considered a precedent are widespread, including in federal courts. For example, judges on the federal appellate court in Cincinnati decided in 2003 that Bush v. Gore was precedent “we are bound to adhere to." Thirteen years later, another set of judges on that same court dismissed the opinion as “non-precedential." Still other judges split the difference, like one on the appeals court in Richmond this year, who called Bush v. Gore “of limited precedential value."
Bush v. Gore Since Bush v. Gore
For a case that's widely regarded as an aberration, Bush v. Gore has done all right for itself outside the U.S. Supreme Court. Not only has it been cited well over a hundred times by state supreme courts and federal courts of appeals, that tally grows to about 500 when lower courts are included — from litigation over the 2003 vote to recall California Gov. Gray Davis to this year's court battle over felon reenfranchisement in Florida. That means there's a chance Bush v. Gore could reprise its role this year at the center of the resolution of the presidential race, should, say, Pennsylvania become to 2020 what Florida was for 2000. (Indeed, the case has already been raised as part of the ongoing litigation about how to handle mail-in ballots in the state.)
It could also help decide the outcome of other key races, a particularly consequential possibility given that control of the Senate is at stake this year. In 2008, for example, Norm Coleman, an incumbent Republican senator from Minnesota, tried to use Bush v. Gore to challenge the process by which election officials decided whether absentee ballots were valid. He was unsuccessful, and his Democratic opponent, the comedian Al Franken, ultimately won the seat.
Over the past two decades, Bush v. Gore has evolved beyond the partisan identity it maintains in the public imagination. An examination of judicial decisions and court filings in more than 150 cases suggests its invocation won't necessarily benefit one party or the other.
The ruling has continued to be invoked in its original context, guiding judicial oversight of ballot recounts. That makes it an inviting tool for a president who has repeatedly mused publicly about halting vote tabulations after Election Day. But the case could just as soon help speed along a recount, as the president has seen firsthand in November 2016, when Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein petitioned for a recount of votes cast in Michigan, a state Trump then appeared to have won by only a few thousand votes. Stein's recount didn't change the outcome, but federal judges in that case relied in part on Bush v. Gore to ensure the recount got done on time, ruling in favor of Stein's request to waive a waiting period mandated by state law before beginning a recount. The delay, they reasoned, might prevent the state from completing the recount ahead of a key federal deadline. Once a state grants a right to a recount, a federal appeals judge wrote, “the State could not use arbitrary or unreasonable procedural rules to make that right a nullity."
Bush v. Gore has been applied in contradictory ways in different cases, both to disqualify large numbers of ballots or to ensure that ballots aren't arbitrarily rejected. Just after the 2018 election, for example, Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson's reelection campaign and a state Democratic Party committee filed a federal lawsuit challenging the way Florida election officials verified signatures on vote-by-mail and provisional ballots. When a state lets residents vote by mail, the campaign's legal team argued in a filing that relied on Bush v. Gore, the Equal Protection Clause forbids the state from luring “its voters into a procedurally arbitrary vote-by-mail trap that results in their disenfranchisement." In response to Nelson's suit, the courts bemoaned “Florida's lack of any standards or formal training requirements" for those who assess ballot signatures, as well as the state's failure to notify some Floridians in time to fix improperly rejected ballots. A judge ordered the state to give those voters until 11 days after the election to submit affidavits and proof of identity so their votes would count. (Despite that interim victory, Nelson came up short and lost his seat.)
On the other side of the partisan divide, GOP lawyers this year are deploying Bush v. Gore aggressively. Attorneys for Republican legislators in North Carolina, for instance, recently argued that a state elections board plan to extend the period of time that officials could accept ballots postmarked by Election Day violated Bush v. Gore. In essence, they claimed that the case permitted their clients to use the Equal Protection Clause as a tool to reduce the number of eligible voters who got to cast a ballot. The full appeals court rejected the argument, with one of the judges in the majority calling the plaintiffs' argument “deeply troubling." The plaintiffs had suffered no harm, she wrote, and their sole aim was to reduce the number of eligible voters allowed to legally cast their ballot. (Three of the court's more conservative judges wrote a dissent agreeing with the plaintiffs. On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request to temporarily block the extension.)
There's more of this to come. On Oct. 23, a lawsuit filed in Nevada by the Trump campaign and the state Republican Party argues that the state runs afoul of Bush v. Gore because it offers a way to challenge in-person voters but fails to offer a mechanism for challenging voters who send their ballot through the mail, a potential opening salvo in an attack on mail-in voting in an important swing state.
Bush v. Gore and the Ghost of William Rehnquist
Until recently, Bush v. Gore's ongoing influence on federal elections has been fairly quiet, adapting to new issues of election administration in an incremental, case-by-case manner. It now seems on the verge of a metamorphosis. In recent years, Bush v. Gore — or, more precisely, a side note in it, a line of reasoning that indisputably is without precedential effect — has begun to gain currency among conservative jurists and election lawyers. In the past week, four members of the Supreme Court's conservative wing became advocates for the cause, seeking to transform a long-marginal idea into the law of the land. Should a majority of the high court embrace the thinking, the court's new right-leaning supermajority will have near-total power over courtroom efforts to shape federal elections — a set of circumstances that election law scholars and voting rights lawyers fear could seriously hinder efforts to expand the franchise in the United States.
Separate from the unsigned majority opinion in Bush v. Gore, the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, joined by Scalia and Thomas, authored a concurring opinion offering “additional grounds" for putting an end to the Florida ballot recount. Ordinarily, when a state supreme court rules on an issue of state law, that state court decision can't be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, an outgrowth of the federal system in the United States. In his concurrence, however, Rehnquist claimed to have identified an exception to this rule in the context of state laws governing presidential elections. In that context, Rehnquist wrote, the U.S. Supreme Court, in fact, could second-guess a state supreme court's interpretation of its own state's election law.
Rehnquist's argument hinged on a narrow reading of the U.S. Constitution's Presidential Electors Clause, which says, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct," the electors that vote for the president and vice president. In the chief justice's view, the Constitution gave state legislatures exclusive authority to run presidential elections, and when, as in Florida in 2000, a state court (or governor) interfered in the election laws passed by the legislature, that runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution, which means that the federal Supreme Court can intervene to help preserve the state legislature's power over how the state runs its presidential elections.
The dissenting justices expressed puzzlement and incredulity at Rehnquist's unusual reading of the Presidential Electors Clause. By his logic, they observed, a state legislature was unconstrained by its state constitution when prescribing laws related to presidential elections. The Supreme Court's own precedents, the late Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, rejected Rehnquist's interpretation. “Legislature" in the Presidential Electors Clause, he wrote, meant the state legislature acting in its ordinary lawmaking capacity, subject to a gubernatorial veto and the state constitution as interpreted by the courts, not as an all-powerful synod.
This week, Rehnquist's theory not only received the imprimatur of four sitting justices; it saw its scope expand. First, on Monday, came Kavanaugh's riff on Bush v. Gore in his concurrence in the Wisconsin vote-by-mail extension case. It excavated Rehnquist's theory and held it out as the correct reading of the Constitution. It was an odd place for Kavanaugh to articulate his pro-Rehnquist thesis, because, as Kavanaugh acknowledged, it was entirely irrelevant to the Wisconsin case. The Wisconsin case was appealed from a federal court, not a state court, and there's no question the U.S. Supreme Court has the power to review the decisions of lower federal courts. Kavanaugh's footnote suggested he was eager to convey his point of view out into the world, possibly to encourage future litigants to present the court with opportunities to elevate Rehnquist's concurrence to the level of precedent. That signal may not be necessary. Throughout the country, Republican election lawyers are already doing just that.
No other justice joined Kavanaugh's concurrence, but just two days later, three of them would join him in extolling the virtues of Rehnquist's theory. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court declined to roll back similar vote-by-mail buffer periods in two other swing states, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. Unlike in Wisconsin, the extensions of time were authorized by state courts relying on state law, the kind of decision over which the federal Supreme Court ordinarily has no authority. Given the partisan polarization around voting by mail this year, Democrats celebrated the outcome. The festivities, however, were muted. Accompanying each order was a lengthy statement signed by some or all of justices unhappy about the outcome — Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas — and warning that the cases might not be over yet.
Both statements declared their support for adopting Rehnquist's Bush v. Gore concurrence and went further still, indicating that, within state government, the legislature also has exclusive control over congressional elections. (The Constitution authorizes Congress to override the legislature.) The statement written by Alito, which was appended to the Pennsylvania order, suggested that the Supreme Court might yet intervene after the election, potentially rejecting some large number of ballots that were mailed by Election Day but that arrived at election offices within the three day buffer period.
The more realistic reason for Bush v. Gore to alarm Democrats is that the Supreme Court's four most conservative justices — Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas — seem to be champing at the bit to cut state courts out of federal elections altogether. “Conservative judges have increasingly shown hostility to expanded voting rights, even during a pandemic," said Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. The approach embodied in the Rehnquist concurrence, known to lawyers as the independent state legislature doctrine, is one of many tools “that is making it harder for other actors to protect voting rights."
Can they get a fifth justice on their side? Barrett's views aren't yet known, but Roberts doesn't seem eager to embrace the Rehnquist theory. This Monday, in a brief opinion, the chief justice distinguished the situation in Wisconsin, where a federal court had modified election rules, and in Pennsylvania, where the state supreme court had done so, relying on “the authority of state courts to apply their own constitutions to election regulations."
Still, other courts are running with the interpretation favored by the four conservative justices. On Thursday, a federal appeals court voted 2-1 to order Minnesota to separate late-arriving mail-in ballots, finding that a state court-ordered buffer period was likely illegal. Their reasoning? Plucked more or less straight from Kavanaugh's Wisconsin concurrence.
Rehnquist's theory poses greater risks to Democrats than Republicans, at least in the near term. Over the past decade or so, Republicans have done an impressive job of taking over state legislatures. In the key swing states of North Carolina and Pennsylvania, there is a Democratic governor, a liberal majority on the state supreme court, and a Republican-controlled legislature. Biden's lawyers surely would prefer their odds in the supreme courts of those states than in a U.S. Supreme Court that's more conservative than it's been in decades.


alternet--2020-11-01--A Wall Street tax that could lift many out of poverty already exists. It's just not being collected

Imagine if there were a tiny tax that Wall Street traders were required to pay on every stock trade .
Enacting such a thing might sound like a long and difficult political fight against a moneyed caste .
Yet astonishingly , it turns out that it already exists in the state of New York — it 's just not being collected .
To the contrary : Wall Street is being refunded the tax money .
That 's particularly ironic right now , when many economists and pundits have astutely noted that Wall Street bankers and investors are making out quite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't .
The fortunes of billionaires in the United States have increased precipitously in the past eight months , while wages have stagnated for the vast majority and poverty has risen .
The City of New York , the largest and densest in the state , has a particular concentration of poverty that could be alleviated if this peculiar tax rebate were merely reversed .
Given that federal relief from the Trump administration has been scant , ending the tax rebate seems like shrewd politics .
And progressives are starting to bring attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and its discontents Since 1981 , the State of New York has been rebating back to Wall Street billions of dollars from the state 's Stock Transfer Tax , first enacted by Albany Republicans in 1905 who needed to close a budget gap in an era when trust-busting was in the air .
Assemblyman Phil Steck has been leading the charge to stop sending the revenue back to Wall Street from the minuscule transaction tax .
Such an act could net the state up to $ 19 billion a year .
While $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 50 billion in pandemic aid that New York State , New York City , and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority require , progressives say it 's a down payment on a long overdue realignment .
`` The tax is in sum and substance one quarter of one percent , it 's nothing .
.
.
and according to data from Tax and Finance it was $ 1.6 billion in June alone , '' Mr. Steck said during a phone interview .
`` The present circumstances demand it .
.
.Teachers are being laid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ withheld .
Upstate some of our education funding is all grant-based . ''
Steck continued : `` In the last ten years , we have given up $ 138 billion .
It is the classic race to the bottom .
The whole public sector has been starved .
It all starts with Reagan and the anti-tax thing and the idea that government is bloated yet huge private corporations have as much bureaucracy as government . ''
So , just what are the lost opportunity costs of forking over that much tax revenue back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy that 's been gorging itself for decades even as so many were struggling ?
`` Most of our great water and sewer infrastructure was built with federal aid , '' explained Steck .
`` But as we kept spending more and more on the military that aid stopped and at that point the states had a choice ; either the states raised taxes or let it go to hell .
What did they do ?
They let it go to hell , and that 's why are infrastructure ratings are so poor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and bridges . ''
The case for ending the rebating of the stock transaction tax back to Wall Street got much stronger with the October 22 report for New York State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli , which noted that the `` securities industry saw its pretax profits reach $ 27.6 billion in the first six months of 2020 , an 82 percent increase over the same period last year . ''
James Henry is a New York based economist and lawyer who is a senior advisor with the international Tax Justice Network .
Henry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the stock transfer tax would greatly help abate the poverty caused by the pandemic .
`` New York has a chance to set an example for the world and that is a very painless tax that is highly concentrated a very , very wealthy people and institutions that can be used for many ongoing needs , '' Henry told Salon .
`` Now , we have an emergency that is affecting everybody and we are acutely aware of the fiscal crisis — and that I think is going to make it finally possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work together and to implement such a thing — but even then it is not a done deal because Wall Street is fiercely opposed to setting this precedent . ''
Henry said such taxes on financial transactions are very common around the world .
`` Two weeks ago , Spain implemented a stock transfer tax .
The EU [ European Union ] is about to adopt a tax between 0.1 and 0.2 percent .
They are debating this on all European exchanges .
Even Kenya has adopted a financial transaction tax…and they are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '' If not now , when ?
`` At no other time in recent history would there be less of a basis for opposition to a stock transfer tax when the mass of the population , so called Main Street , is in such deep economic difficulty with very little prospect of getting out of it soon and a major likelihood it is about to get worse , '' says Richard D. Wolff , a professor emeritus of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst .
Wolff said he first encountered the concept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a student getting his doctorate in economics and took a class from James Tobin who championed the concept and went on to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics .
`` In Europe it is stilled called the Tobin Tax , '' said Wolff .
`` He [ James Tobin ] was a Kennedy liberal , no radical , not by a long shot .
A smidge to the left of Biden . ''
Today , opponents of ending the rebate raise the specter that Wall Street firms will leave New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the tax was enacted , the New York Times raised the same concern , warning the levy would send the captains of high finance fleeing for Philadelphia and Chicago leaving New York to the fate of `` Medieval cities , which fell out of the course of modern commerce . ''
By July 1905 , with the Stock Transfer Tax on the books , the Times was singing a much different tune .
Then , they observed that it had `` no traceable '' impact on Wall Street and was actually working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the prophecies thus falsified , '' opined the Times .
The London Stock Exchange has had such a stock transfer tax since 1694 , despite perennial complaints from the investor class .
Stock transfer boosters say the revenue realized from it is only one of many benefits .
`` It does discourage day traders , '' Steck told the Corporate Crime Reporter .
`` And day trading is not considered beneficial for economic reasons .
It 's more like gambling .
In Hong Kong , for example , they have a financial transaction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they have less of that type of frequent trading behavior than we have here in this country . ''
As Henry sees it , resuming the collection of the Stock Transfer Tax in New York is just one item on a tax reform agenda which needs to include addressing nationally the huge Trump-McConnell 2017 tax cut which `` basically failed to tax the $ 2.6 trillion U.S. multinationals had accumulated offshore for 20 years . ''
Henry continued .
`` U.S. multinationals have been basically parking their intellectual property , their software , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paying any taxes on the royalties that they pay themselves tax free .

Imagine if there were a tiny tax that Wall Street traders were required to pay on every stock trade. Enacting such a thing might sound like a long and difficult political fight against a moneyed caste. Yet astonishingly, it turns out that it already exists in the state of New York — it's just not being collected. To the contrary: Wall Street is being refunded the tax money.
That's particularly ironic right now, when many economists and pundits have astutely noted that Wall Street bankers and investors are making out quite well while the rest of us aren't. The fortunes of billionaires in the United States have increased precipitously in the past eight months, while wages have stagnated for the vast majority and povertyhas risen.
The City of New York, the largest and densest in the state, has a particular concentration of poverty that could be alleviated if this peculiar tax rebate were merely reversed. Given that federal relief from the Trump administration has been scant, ending the tax rebate seems like shrewd politics. And progressives are starting to bring attention to it.
The Stock Transfer Tax and its discontents
Since 1981, the State of New York has been rebating back to Wall Street billions of dollars from the state's Stock Transfer Tax, first enacted by Albany Republicans in 1905 who needed to close a budget gap in an era when trust-busting was in the air.
Assemblyman Phil Steck has been leading the charge to stop sending the revenue back to Wall Street from the minuscule transaction tax. Such an act could net the state up to $19 billion a year.
While $19 billion is well shy of the $50 billion in pandemic aid that New York State, New York City, and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority require, progressives say it's a down payment on a long overdue realignment.
"The tax is in sum and substance one quarter of one percent, it's nothing . . . and according to data from Tax and Finance it was $1.6 billion in June alone," Mr. Steck said during a phone interview. "The present circumstances demand it . . .Teachers are being laid off . . .grant-based programs have been withheld. Upstate some of our education funding is all grant-based."
Steck continued: "In the last ten years, we have given up $138 billion. It is the classic race to the bottom. The whole public sector has been starved. It all starts with Reagan and the anti-tax thing and the idea that government is bloated yet huge private corporations have as much bureaucracy as government."
So, just what are the lost opportunity costs of forking over that much tax revenue back to the very same sector of the economy that's been gorging itself for decades even as so many were struggling?
"Most of our great water and sewer infrastructure was built with federal aid," explained Steck. "But as we kept spending more and more on the military that aid stopped and at that point the states had a choice; either the states raised taxes or let it go to hell. What did they do? They let it go to hell, and that's why are infrastructure ratings are so poor in terms of the quality of roads and bridges."
The case for ending the rebating of the stock transaction tax back to Wall Street got much stronger with the October 22 report for New York State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, which noted that the "securities industry saw its pretax profits reach $27.6 billion in the first six months of 2020, an 82 percent increase over the same period last year."
James Henry is a New York based economist and lawyer who is a senior advisor with the international Tax Justice Network. Henry says that if the rebate ends, the stock transfer tax would greatly help abate the poverty caused by the pandemic.
"New York has a chance to set an example for the world and that is a very painless tax that is highly concentrated a very, very wealthy people and institutions that can be used for many ongoing needs," Henry told Salon. "Now, we have an emergency that is affecting everybody and we are acutely aware of the fiscal crisis — and that I think is going to make it finally possible to get lots of different jurisdictions to work together and to implement such a thing — but even then it is not a done deal because Wall Street is fiercely opposed to setting this precedent."
Henry said such taxes on financial transactions are very common around the world. "Two weeks ago, Spain implemented a stock transfer tax. The EU [European Union] is about to adopt a tax between 0.1 and 0.2 percent. They are debating this on all European exchanges. Even Kenya has adopted a financial transaction tax…and they are raising more money than they expected."
If not now, when?
"At no other time in recent history would there be less of a basis for opposition to a stock transfer tax when the mass of the population, so called Main Street, is in such deep economic difficulty with very little prospect of getting out of it soon and a major likelihood it is about to get worse," says Richard D. Wolff, a professor emeritus of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Wolff said he first encountered the concept of the stock transfer tax when he was a student getting his doctorate in economics and took a class from James Tobin who championed the concept and went on to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics.
"In Europe it is stilled called the Tobin Tax," said Wolff. "He [James Tobin] was a Kennedy liberal, no radical, not by a long shot. A smidge to the left of Biden."
Today, opponents of ending the rebate raise the specter that Wall Street firms will leave New York.
Back in March of 1905, before the tax was enacted, the New York Times raised the same concern, warning the levy would send the captains of high finance fleeing for Philadelphia and Chicago leaving New York to the fate of "Medieval cities, which fell out of the course of modern commerce."
By July 1905, with the Stock Transfer Tax on the books, the Times was singing a much different tune. Then, they observed that it had "no traceable" impact on Wall Street and was actually working. "It is sad to recall the prophecies thus falsified," opined the Times.
The London Stock Exchange has had such a stock transfer tax since 1694, despite perennial complaints from the investor class.
Stock transfer boosters say the revenue realized from it is only one of many benefits.
"It does discourage day traders," Steck told the Corporate Crime Reporter. "And day trading is not considered beneficial for economic reasons. It's more like gambling. In Hong Kong, for example, they have a financial transaction tax. And as a result, they have less of that type of frequent trading behavior than we have here in this country."
As Henry sees it, resuming the collection of the Stock Transfer Tax in New York is just one item on a tax reform agenda which needs to include addressing nationally the huge Trump-McConnell 2017 tax cut which "basically failed to tax the $2.6 trillion U.S. multinationals had accumulated offshore for 20 years."
Henry continued. "U.S. multinationals have been basically parking their intellectual property, their software, their patents in offshore havens and not paying any taxes on the royalties that they pay themselves tax free.


alternet--2020-11-01--Trump is ending his campaign on an ugly new low — and barely anyone noticed

Donald Trump , tragically occupying the office of president of the United States , possibly has uttered the ugliest words of an ugly career defacing the national stage .
And they barely led the news anywhere .
Trump has been claiming at his super-spreader rallies for the past week that American doctors are profiting from the death of COVID-19 patients .
Take a step back and absorb this atrocity .
This man just invented a mendacious lie from scratch , not even remotely rational and in the process denigrated the frontline heroes who have been risking their lives and those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the worst pandemic in a century .
It did n't even dominate a news cycle .
The nation has been so numbed by this Hitlerian character that this singular slander can not be distinguished from all his other regurgitations .
But it was far worse .
It was as ludicrous as suggesting people ingest Clorox to treat COVID-19 .
It was as invented as the 3 million people who voted illegally in California in 2016 .
It was as vulgar as talking about grabbing women by the genitals .
It was as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at Helsinki .
It was as insulting as calling Mexicans rapists and murderers .
It was as vicious as telling four U. S. congresswomen to return to their home countries .
It was as monstrous as seeing fine people on both sides at Charlottesville .
It was all those grotesque abominations rolled into one .
But the nation is so exhausted and bitter and divided and crazed that it barely noticed that the most powerful man in the world created such an evil falsehood , apparently to find still another scapegoat for his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tragedies in human history .
Trump falsely ascribed some profit motive to wonderful men and women–across the spectrum of race and ethnicity– people who have wept at the bedsides of 225,000 Americans as they died despite every ounce of energy , knowledge and skill that they could muster to save them .
And this swine–whose undeserving hindquarters were saved by the very medical profession he besmirches–he is going to convince millions of his incognizant followers that the doctors are to blame for the pandemic because they were cashing in on it ?
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of someone you despise .
This is as low as human speech can descend .
And yet we barely noticed .

Donald Trump, tragically occupying the office of president of the United States, possibly has uttered the ugliest words of an ugly career defacing the national stage. And they barely led the news anywhere.
Trump has been claiming at his super-spreader rallies for the past week that American doctors are profiting from the death of COVID-19 patients. Take a step back and absorb this atrocity. This man just invented a mendacious lie from scratch, not even remotely rational and in the process denigrated the frontline heroes who have been risking their lives and those of their families in a 9-month struggle against the worst pandemic in a century.
It didn't even dominate a news cycle. The nation has been so numbed by this Hitlerian character that this singular slander cannot be distinguished from all his other regurgitations.
But it was far worse.
It was as ludicrous as suggesting people ingest Clorox to treat COVID-19.
It was as invented as the 3 million people who voted illegally in California in 2016.
It was as vulgar as talking about grabbing women by the genitals.
It was as unpatriotic as groveling at Putin's feet at Helsinki.
It was as insulting as calling Mexicans rapists and murderers.
It was as vicious as telling four U. S. congresswomen to return to their home countries.
It was as monstrous as seeing fine people on both sides at Charlottesville.
It was all those grotesque abominations rolled into one. But the nation is so exhausted and bitter and divided and crazed that it barely noticed that the most powerful man in the world created such an evil falsehood, apparently to find still another scapegoat for his complicity in one of the worst avoidable tragedies in human history.
Trump falsely ascribed some profit motive to wonderful men and women–across the spectrum of race and ethnicity– people who have wept at the bedsides of 225,000 Americans as they died despite every ounce of energy, knowledge and skill that they could muster to save them. And this swine–whose undeserving hindquarters were saved by the very medical profession he besmirches–he is going to convince millions of his incognizant followers that the doctors are to blame for the pandemic because they were cashing in on it?
This is like wishing cancer on the children of someone you despise. This is as low as human speech can descend.
And yet we barely noticed.


alternet--2020-11-01--Texas ‘Trump Train’ of flag-bearing pickups ambushes Biden-Harris campaign bus

A caravan of Donald Trump supporters driving dozens of mostly banner-festooned pickup trucks and SUVs deliberately ambushed a Biden-Harris campaign bus traveling to Austin and other parts of Texas on Friday , harassing them constantly en route , forcing Democrats to cancel at least two campaign events out of concern for public safety .
The participants , however , all proudly boasted about the harassment on social media , and police made no arrests .
Videos show the pro-Trump vehicles surrounded the bus on the freeway and slowed its progress , as passengers and drivers shouted obscenities and various epithets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were armed .
At one point , a pickup driver veered into a campaign staff vehicle following the bus and smashed its fender , forcing it into another lane .
Neither Joe Biden nor Kamala Harris were aboard the bus , which was traveling from San Antonio to Austin on Interstate 35 .
Among the passengers on board were Wendy Davis , a Democrat running in the 21st Congressional District against incumbent Republican Chip Roy ; Democratic Congressman Rep. Lloyd Doggett , who represents District 35 ; and Roland Gutierrez , a candidate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bus was part of a late Texas push for the Biden campaign , which organized several events in the state as part of a `` Battle for the Soul of the Nation '' tour featuring various Democratic candidates appearing with Harris .
The pro-Trump vehicles , dubbed the `` Trump Train , '' surrounded it as it passed near New Braunfels en route to Austin , and remained with it until San Marcos , 20 miles down the road .
Videos showed the vehicles lined up along the freeway in wait for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it as pro-Trump onlookers cheered and laughed .
According to people on the bus , the vehicles slowed and appeared to attempt stopping the bus altogether .
One of the caravan 's Facebook organizers , Randi Ceh , posted video on her Facebook page claiming the staff car following the bus closely was breaking the law—and when a large pickup veered and hit it on the side fender , claimed that it was the staff car driver attempting to cause an accident .
A campaign staffer told The Daily Beast that the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bus off the road .
Police were called from the bus , and they reportedly helped the driver reach Austin safely .
Once in Austin , however , a crowd of Trump supporters surrounded the bus and continued the harassment .
Fearing the threats would escalate , Democrats canceled the event .
Nor was that the only canceled event .
The Biden bus had also been scheduled to make a stop in Pflugerville to campaign with Texas House Representative Sheryl Cole , who was waiting there .
Cole tweeted that the Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security reasons .
`` Pro-Trump Protesters have escalated well beyond safe limits , '' she posted .
The Trump truck caravans have increasingly proved to be not just a prime environment for violent rhetoric and threatening behavior organized on behalf of the Republican president , but as occurred in Oregon earlier this summer , a prime vector for blurring the lines between far-right extremists such as the Proud Boys and ostensibly mainstream Republicans .
Locals in New Braunfels voiced their anger with the Trump Train organizers , who have been creating the caravans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gloria Meehan , Comal County Democratic Party chair , told MyCanyonLake.com that the activists were destroying the area 's reputation .
`` Frankly , I feel sorry for those involved with the Trump Train that they have nothing worthwhile to do , but drive around aimlessly , harassing and intimidating , '' Meehan said .
`` Why ?
Nothing good comes of idleness and bad intentions .
They 're rudderless , adrift , lost in a sea of discontent .
It 's unsustainable , and behavior like this strikes at the heart of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the ground as folks no longer feel safe coming to New Braunfels and will take their tourist dollars elsewhere .
The word is Comal County , for all its beauty , is dangerous and unwelcoming . ''

A caravan of Donald Trump supporters driving dozens of mostly banner-festooned pickup trucks and SUVs deliberately ambushed a Biden-Harris campaign bus traveling to Austin and other parts of Texas on Friday, harassing them constantly en route, forcing Democrats to cancel at least two campaign events out of concern for public safety. The participants, however, all proudly boasted about the harassment on social media, and police made no arrests.
Videos show the pro-Trump vehicles surrounded the bus on the freeway and slowed its progress, as passengers and drivers shouted obscenities and various epithets; one witness claimed many of them were armed. At one point, a pickup driver veered into a campaign staff vehicle following the bus and smashed its fender, forcing it into another lane.
'Trump Train' youtu.be
Neither Joe Biden nor Kamala Harris were aboard the bus, which was traveling from San Antonio to Austin on Interstate 35. Among the passengers on board were Wendy Davis, a Democrat running in the 21st Congressional District against incumbent Republican Chip Roy; Democratic Congressman Rep. Lloyd Doggett, who represents District 35; and Roland Gutierrez, a candidate for Texas senate District 19.
The bus was part of a late Texas push for the Biden campaign, which organized several events in the state as part of a "Battle for the Soul of the Nation" tour featuring various Democratic candidates appearing with Harris. The pro-Trump vehicles, dubbed the "Trump Train," surrounded it as it passed near New Braunfels en route to Austin, and remained with it until San Marcos, 20 miles down the road.
Videos showed the vehicles lined up along the freeway in wait for the bus, then speeding up and surrounding it as pro-Trump onlookers cheered and laughed. According to people on the bus, the vehicles slowed and appeared to attempt stopping the bus altogether.
One of the caravan's Facebook organizers, Randi Ceh, posted video on her Facebook page claiming the staff car following the bus closely was breaking the law—and when a large pickup veered and hit it on the side fender, claimed that it was the staff car driver attempting to cause an accident.
A campaign staffer told The Daily Beastthat the Trump supporters appeared to be trying to force the bus off the road. Police were called from the bus, and they reportedly helped the driver reach Austin safely.
Once in Austin, however, a crowd of Trump supporters surrounded the bus and continued the harassment. Fearing the threats would escalate, Democrats canceled the event.
Nor was that the only canceled event. The Biden bus had also been scheduled to make a stop in Pflugerville to campaign with Texas House Representative Sheryl Cole, who was waiting there. Cole tweeted that the Biden bus also had to cancel due to security reasons.
"Pro-Trump Protesters have escalated well beyond safe limits," she posted.
The Trump truck caravans have increasingly proved to be not just a prime environment for violent rhetoric and threatening behavior organized on behalf of the Republican president, but as occurred in Oregon earlier this summer, a prime vector for blurring the lines between far-right extremists such as the Proud Boys and ostensibly mainstream Republicans.
Locals in New Braunfels voiced their anger with the Trump Train organizers, who have been creating the caravans as regular demonstrations since this summer. Gloria Meehan, Comal County Democratic Party chair, told MyCanyonLake.com that the activists were destroying the area's reputation.
"Frankly, I feel sorry for those involved with the Trump Train that they have nothing worthwhile to do, but drive around aimlessly, harassing and intimidating," Meehan said. "Why? Nothing good comes of idleness and bad intentions. They're rudderless, adrift, lost in a sea of discontent. It's unsustainable, and behavior like this strikes at the heart of our community and is driving our economy into the ground as folks no longer feel safe coming to New Braunfels and will take their tourist dollars elsewhere. The word is Comal County, for all its beauty, is dangerous and unwelcoming."


alternet--2020-11-03--Scandal-plagued GOP congressman could get into even more legal hot water if he wins re-election

Scandal-plagued Republican Rep. Jim Hagedorn defended himself against a report that he appears to have made use of rent-free office space care of a campaign donor by telling the local press last month the story was nothing but partisan lies .
But a closer look reveals inconsistencies in his campaign 's explanation for why it appears to have made no payments for use of an address in a building once owned by and currently managed by a large campaign donor , an arrangement that could be a violation of federal election laws and House ethics rules .
An expose in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had disclosed no payments for use of a campaign headquarters in Mankato , Minn. , despite listing the building 's address on federal election records since 2013 as the campaign 's headquarters and despite photos posted on various social media accounts and news outlets showing the campaign using a space there for at least several months in 2018 .
Campaigns are required to pay fair market rate for any facilities they use , according to election laws .
The campaign , however , released a statement at the time to Mankato television news @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story false .
The campaign claimed 11 Civic Center Plaza Suite 007 , an address it has listed on campaign finance reports going back to 2013 , actually corresponds to a post office box .
The reason the campaign disclosed no payments to the owner of the building in its federal election spending records is that arrangements for the post office box were made directly with the United States Postal Service , the campaign claimed in the statement to KEYC .
However a newly revealed document obtained through the Freedom of Information Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record of any such dealings with Hagedorn or his campaign .
KEYC attributed the following statement to Hagedorn 's campaign , in an article published October 12 : '' The campaign has utilized a USPS post office box , associated with Suite 007 , beginning in 2013 .
The P.O .
Box remains in use today , and all arrangements are made directly with USPS .
Suite 007 is not a room or office suite ; it is a P.O .
Box .
Thus , the article 's premise is blatantly false .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with USPS seeking any records of contracts , payments or business arrangements for the use of a post office box in Mankato between the postal service and Hagedorn , his campaign , his congressional office , or anyone associated with his campaign or office .
The request also asked for any communications between the postal service and Hagedorn or people in his orbit about the use of a post office box in Mankato .
`` Based on your description of records sought , a search was conducted of the files maintained by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ search , we were unable to locate responsive documents , '' Rachel Christensen , USPS manager of consumer and industry contact in Minneapolis , wrote in a letter delivered last week .
Hagedorn 's campaign said in a statement Monday that any allegations it has failed to disclose illegal contributions are `` phony '' and `` made-up '' by `` biased liberal media '' to `` hurt the Hagedorn campaign . ''
Even so , it seemed to confirm in the same statement that it did indeed use a mailbox in the historic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ building free of charge .
`` As the Friends of Hagedorn campaign has stipulated consistently , the key to the Post Office Box associated with the address '11 Civic Center Plaza , Suite 007 , ' was obtained from the Mankato USPS office by a Hagedorn staff member in 2013 .
The Brett 's building owner , for 26 years , never charged anyone for use of the P.O .
Boxes in the building , '' the statement said .
A postal service source noted that whatever box Hagedorn 's campaign was using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because the postal service does n't actually maintain any boxes associated with that address .
`` The Postal Service does not offer PO Box rentals at 11 Civic Center Plaza , Mankato , Minnesota , '' the source explained .
`` This address has no affiliation with the Postal Service , however the location does receive mail from our local letter carriers .
There are three cluster mailboxes in that location that serve both the 11 Civic Center Plaza and the 12 Civic Center Plaza . ''
The Hagedorn campaign declined to answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether one of these cluster mailboxes is what it meant by `` P.O .
Box . ''
The postal service 's comments seem to confirm what is also apparent in publicly available campaign finance reports maintained by the Federal Election Commission : The Hagedorn campaign has reported no payments for a use of a post office box .
Hagedorn would have had to pay a fair market rate for any space used by the campaign .
The building where he has listed his address was up until last year owned by a large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also maintains his official congressional office in the building , but he would be forbidden from getting additional space for his campaign as a result of that contract .
Any free or below market use of space would have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission as an `` in-kind donation , '' which is a donation of goods or services , rather than money .
But Hagedorn 's campaign has n't reported any such donation from the current or former owner of the building .
The campaign also said it had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a space for a campaign office in 2018 , but FEC records show no such payment .
The campaign says it does not have a physical office .
However , FEC records reveal that the campaign has paid for `` Internet '' from Charter Communications , a company that services Mankato .
The company made a payment as recently as last month to the company for internet service .
A representative for the internet service provider previously told the Minnesota Reformer that it does indeed service 11 Civic Center Plaza Suite 7 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which corresponds to the date the Hagedorn campaign first began making payments for internet service .
Hagedorn 's ethics issues have become a major controversy in the first-term congressman 's race for reelection in Minnesota 's first district , located south of Minneapolis .
His Democratic opponent , Dan Feehan , has accused Hagedorn of `` personal corruption '' in two recent debates and has aired television ads focusing on potential ethics lapses revealed in several news stories .
`` Hagedorn took potentially illegal campaign contributions from a wealthy donor and paid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our taxpayer money , '' the Feehan campaign posted on Facebook last month after the Politico story ran .
`` Worse yet , when asked about it , he and those around him continue to lie and cover up . ''
Democrats ' campaign arm and left-leaning outside groups have spent millions of dollars in the district , listing it as one of their top targets for a Democratic pickup in Tuesday 's elections .
A representative for the internet service provider previously told the Minnesota Reformer that it does indeed service @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has done so since April 2019 , which corresponds to the date the Hagedorn campaign first began making payments for internet service .
Hagedorn 's ethics issues have become a major controversy in the first-term congressman 's race for reelection in Minnesota 's first district , located south of Minneapolis .
His Democratic opponent , Dan Feehan , has accused Hagedorn of `` personal corruption '' in two recent debates and has aired television ads focusing on potential ethics lapses revealed in several news stories .
`` Hagedorn took potentially illegal campaign contributions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with tens of thousands of dollars in our taxpayer money , '' the Feehan campaign posted on Facebook last month after the Politico story ran .
`` Worse yet , when asked about it , he and those around him continue to lie and cover up . ''
Democrats ' campaign arm and left-leaning outside groups have spent millions of dollars in the district , listing it as one of their top targets for a Democratic pickup in Tuesday 's elections .

By Daniel Newhauser
Scandal-plagued Republican Rep. Jim Hagedorn defended himself against a report that he appears to have made use of rent-free office space care of a campaign donor by telling the local press last month the story was nothing but partisan lies.
But a closer look reveals inconsistencies in his campaign's explanation for why it appears to have made no payments for use of an address in a building once owned by and currently managed by a large campaign donor, an arrangement that could be a violation of federal election laws and House ethics rules.
An expose in Politico last month noted the Minnesota Republican had disclosed no payments for use of a campaign headquarters in Mankato, Minn., despite listing the building's address on federal election records since 2013 as the campaign's headquarters and despite photos posted on various social media accounts and news outlets showing the campaign using a space there for at least several months in 2018. Campaigns are required to pay fair market rate for any facilities they use, according to election laws.
The campaign, however, released a statement at the time to Mankato television news station KEYC calling the premise of the story false.
The campaign claimed 11 Civic Center Plaza Suite 007, an address it has listed on campaign finance reports going back to 2013, actually corresponds to a post office box. The reason the campaign disclosed no payments to the owner of the building in its federal election spending records is that arrangements for the post office box were made directly with the United States Postal Service, the campaign claimed in the statement to KEYC.
However a newly revealed document obtained through the Freedom of Information Act shows the postal service could find no record of any such dealings with Hagedorn or his campaign.
KEYC attributed the following statement to Hagedorn's campaign, in an article published October 12:
"The campaign has utilized a USPS post office box, associated with Suite 007, beginning in 2013. The P.O. Box remains in use today, and all arrangements are made directly with USPS. Suite 007 is not a room or office suite; it is a P.O. Box. Thus, the article's premise is blatantly false."
Raw Story filed a FOIA request with USPS seeking any records of contracts, payments or business arrangements for the use of a post office box in Mankato between the postal service and Hagedorn, his campaign, his congressional office, or anyone associated with his campaign or office. The request also asked for any communications between the postal service and Hagedorn or people in his orbit about the use of a post office box in Mankato.
"Based on your description of records sought, a search was conducted of the files maintained by the Mankato Post Office. Despite this diligent search, we were unable to locate responsive documents," Rachel Christensen, USPS manager of consumer and industry contact in Minneapolis, wrote in a letter delivered last week.
Hagedorn's campaign said in a statement Monday that any allegations it has failed to disclose illegal contributions are "phony" and "made-up" by "biased liberal media" to "hurt the Hagedorn campaign." Even so, it seemed to confirm in the same statement that it did indeed use a mailbox in the historic Mankato building known as the Brett's building free of charge.
"As the Friends of Hagedorn campaign has stipulated consistently, the key to the Post Office Box associated with the address '11 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 007,' was obtained from the Mankato USPS office by a Hagedorn staff member in 2013. The Brett's building owner, for 26 years, never charged anyone for use of the P.O. Boxes in the building," the statement said.
A postal service source noted that whatever box Hagedorn's campaign was using wasn't a post office box, because the postal service doesn't actually maintain any boxes associated with that address.
"The Postal Service does not offer PO Box rentals at 11 Civic Center Plaza, Mankato, Minnesota," the source explained. "This address has no affiliation with the Postal Service, however the location does receive mail from our local letter carriers. There are three cluster mailboxes in that location that serve both the 11 Civic Center Plaza and the 12 Civic Center Plaza."
The Hagedorn campaign declined to answer when asked in a follow up question whether one of these cluster mailboxes is what it meant by "P.O. Box."
The postal service's comments seem to confirm what is also apparent in publicly available campaign finance reports maintained by the Federal Election Commission: The Hagedorn campaign has reported no payments for a use of a post office box.
Hagedorn would have had to pay a fair market rate for any space used by the campaign. The building where he has listed his address was up until last year owned by a large donor to his congressional campaigns. Hagedorn also maintains his official congressional office in the building, but he would be forbidden from getting additional space for his campaign as a result of that contract.
Any free or below market use of space would have to be reported to the Federal Election Commission as an "in-kind donation," which is a donation of goods or services, rather than money. But Hagedorn's campaign hasn't reported any such donation from the current or former owner of the building. The campaign also said it had paid the former owner for temporary use of a space for a campaign office in 2018, but FEC records show no such payment.
The campaign says it does not have a physical office. However, FEC records reveal that the campaign has paid for "Internet" from Charter Communications, a company that services Mankato. The company made a payment as recently as last month to the company for internet service.
A representative for the internet service provider previously told the Minnesota Reformer that it does indeed service 11 Civic Center Plaza Suite 7 and has done so since April 2019, which corresponds to the date the Hagedorn campaign first began making payments for internet service.
Hagedorn's ethics issues have become a major controversy in the first-term congressman's race for reelection in Minnesota's first district, located south of Minneapolis. His Democratic opponent, Dan Feehan, has accused Hagedorn of "personal corruption" in two recent debates and has aired television ads focusing on potential ethics lapses revealed in several news stories.
"Hagedorn took potentially illegal campaign contributions from a wealthy donor and paid him with tens of thousands of dollars in our taxpayer money," the Feehan campaign posted on Facebook last month after the Politico story ran. "Worse yet, when asked about it, he and those around him continue to lie and cover up."
Democrats' campaign arm and left-leaning outside groups have spent millions of dollars in the district, listing it as one of their top targets for a Democratic pickup in Tuesday's elections.
A representative for the internet service provider previously told the Minnesota Reformer that it does indeed service 11 Civic Center Plaza Suite 7 and has done so since April 2019, which corresponds to the date the Hagedorn campaign first began making payments for internet service.
Hagedorn's ethics issues have become a major controversy in the first-term congressman's race for reelection in Minnesota's first district, located south of Minneapolis. His Democratic opponent, Dan Feehan, has accused Hagedorn of "personal corruption" in two recent debates and has aired television ads focusing on potential ethics lapses revealed in several news stories.
"Hagedorn took potentially illegal campaign contributions from a wealthy donor and paid him with tens of thousands of dollars in our taxpayer money," the Feehan campaign posted on Facebook last month after the Politico story ran. "Worse yet, when asked about it, he and those around him continue to lie and cover up."
Democrats' campaign arm and left-leaning outside groups have spent millions of dollars in the district, listing it as one of their top targets for a Democratic pickup in Tuesday's elections.


alternet--2020-11-03--Susan Collins shows her true self in the last days of a tight race

It 's Nov. 2 , and there 's one burning mystery in Maine : Will Susan Collins vote for Trump ?
Seriously , for eight months she 's been playing this game .
`` I 'm focused on my job and also on my own campaign and I 'm just not going to get involved in presidential politics , '' she said at the beginning of March , refusing to say then if she would vote for Trump in the state 's Republican presidential primary when there were no other names on the ballot .
In the final debate with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it again : `` I 'm not getting into presidential politics , '' she told the moderator , as if that were the least Susan Collins kind of thing Susan Collins would ever do .
Not counting that 2016 op-ed in The Washington Post when she wrote : `` Donald Trump does not reflect historical Republican values nor the inclusive approach to governing that is critical to healing the divisions in our country . ''
Four years later , after Steven Miller , Muslim bans , children ripped from their families and locked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very fine people on both sides , '' Sharpiegate , Steven Miller , Rudy Giuliani , Ukraine quid pro quo , a quarter of a million people dead from coronavirus , Steven Miller ( why did I even get started trying to write a list ?
I 'll be here until next month ! )
—after all that she ca n't say , `` This guy is an even worse nightmare than the 2016 Donald Trump and I 'm out ! ''
It could be because 2016 Susan Collins was a total fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump to bring out the true Susan Collins .
The Susan Collins who last month embraced the endorsement of an anti-LGBTQ , anti-abortion group , the Christian Civic League ( CCL ) of Maine .
And by anti-LGBTQ , I mean a group so extreme it endorses conversion therapy and opposes gay marriage .
`` Let me thank you so much for the endorsement and tell you how truly grateful I am for your support , for the League 's support , '' Collins told CCL of Maine Executive Director Carroll Conley .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ignorance of what this group is .
Its history in Maine is just too extreme and too long .
In 2004 , it sought `` tips , rumors , speculation and facts '' about the sexual orientation of Maine legislators , on a witch hunt for LGBTQ members it could out .
As far back as 1998 , it was trying to deny basic civil rights to LGBTQ Mainers .
`` During her interview with the League , '' the Maine Beacon reports , `` Collins pledged to be a firewall in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Medicare for All—which a majority of Mainers support—and expanding federal health care coverage for abortion . ''
So much for being a pro-choice Republican .
Amy Cookson , the spokesperson in Maine for Planned Parenthood Votes , which is endorsing Gideon , said : `` Despite what [ Collins ] says , her actions make it very clear that she ca n't be trusted to protect our health and rights , including safe legal abortion . ''
She also said : `` I think it 's clear to all of us that Senator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the senator she once was . ''
The latter half of that statement might be true—she 's not the senator she once was .
But it 's not Collins having changed .
It 's Collins ' true colors finally showing .
When the fight got truly existential , when all of our rights are on the line , Collins made the wrong choice .
The Trump choice .
That 's showing us who she is .
For the last time .

It's Nov. 2, and there's one burning mystery in Maine: Will Susan Collins vote for Trump? Seriously, for eight months she's been playing this game. "I'm focused on my job and also on my own campaign and I'm just not going to get involved in presidential politics," she said at the beginning of March, refusing to say then if she would vote for Trump in the state's Republican presidential primary when there were no other names on the ballot.
In the final debate with Sara Gideon last week, she did it again: "I'm not getting into presidential politics," she told the moderator, as if that were the least Susan Collins kind of thing Susan Collins would ever do. Not counting that 2016 op-ed in TheWashington Post when she wrote: "Donald Trump does not reflect historical Republican values nor the inclusive approach to governing that is critical to healing the divisions in our country." Four years later, after Steven Miller, Muslim bans, children ripped from their families and locked in cages, Steven Miller, "very fine people on both sides," Sharpiegate, Steven Miller, Rudy Giuliani, Ukraine quid pro quo, a quarter of a million people dead from coronavirus, Steven Miller (why did I even get started trying to write a list? I'll be here until next month!)—after all that she can't say, "This guy is an even worse nightmare than the 2016 Donald Trump and I'm out!" It could be because 2016 Susan Collins was a total fraud. It could be that it took Trump to bring out the true Susan Collins.
The Susan Collins who last month embraced the endorsement of an anti-LGBTQ, anti-abortion group, the Christian Civic League (CCL) of Maine. And by anti-LGBTQ, I mean a group so extreme it endorses conversion therapy and opposes gay marriage. "Let me thank you so much for the endorsement and tell you how truly grateful I am for your support, for the League's support," Collins told CCL of Maine Executive Director Carroll Conley. It's not like she can claim ignorance of what this group is. Its history in Maine is just too extreme and too long. In 2004, it sought "tips, rumors, speculation and facts" about the sexual orientation of Maine legislators, on a witch hunt for LGBTQ members it could out. As far back as 1998, it was trying to deny basic civil rights to LGBTQ Mainers. "During her interview with the League," the Maine Beacon reports, "Collins pledged to be a firewall in the U.S. Senate against progressive priorities, including Medicare for All—which a majority of Mainers support—and expanding federal health care coverage for abortion." So much for being a pro-choice Republican.
Amy Cookson, the spokesperson in Maine for Planned Parenthood Votes, which is endorsing Gideon, said: "Despite what [Collins] says, her actions make it very clear that she can't be trusted to protect our health and rights, including safe legal abortion." She also said: "I think it's clear to all of us that Senator Collins has changed and she's not the senator she once was."
The latter half of that statement might be true—she's not the senator she once was. But it's not Collins having changed. It's Collins' true colors finally showing. When the fight got truly existential, when all of our rights are on the line, Collins made the wrong choice. The Trump choice. That's showing us who she is. For the last time.