2017 Elections

Democrat won in NJ governor's race, so the U.S. senator trial [jury contemplating now] a lot less stressful. The VA governor race, which many worried about, went well with House control up in the air based on a few nail-biters. Multiple trans people won nation-wide. Medicaid expansion in Maine. A progressive activist won a Philly DA race. Meanwhile, sanity in Notre Dame regarding birth control coverage. Roy Moore race next month!

NYC Votes

Low turnout in NYC, but tbh a bunch of low stress races here. In the 13th District, the second place winner in the primary got a decent protest vote even with all those MG campaign posters (god -- such overkill). I was actually supportive of a constitutional convention, but big loss there. Forest set-aside won narrowly; public official penalty measure unsurprisingly passed by a large margin. I wrote a bunch of write-in names for the "who are these people" judicial races. Continue to find that inane. Voting easy but no receipts.

Primary Day

People are already talking about 2020 but first let us deal with 2017. There is after all various national and state races going on.

It is time for New York City elections.  Though the NY Daily News doesn't like him (recently sold; the editorial board made clear to note they were upset he had no serious competition yesterday), the mayor has a lot to be proud about.  The ID card alone is impressive.  He received about 3/4 of the votes.  I gave Robert Gangi, the lefty dreamer sort in the race, one of his few votes.  But, hey, more power to you big guy.

The other races did not have much competition in general. The Brooklyn DA, who replaced a newcomer who died, got some serious competition but won comfortably.  The comptroller had to competition. The public advocate won comfortably.  The main battles were a few council races, including my own -- the lucky 13th.  To me, the wrong person won, the one with a job already (state assembly), who (he says its for the public service) I think was influenced by the pay raise (which is a bit backward). 

The article above notes: "Marjorie Velazquez, a district leader who had the support of Vacca (incumbent) and Mark-Viverito (outgoing city council speaker, may get a second, more difficult shot in November on the Working Families Party line." You'd think such support would get you the job, but the winner seems to have had support of many party leaders including one who is a leader of the faction that caucuses with the Republicans in the state senate (that alone pisses me off).  I kept on seeing his damn campaign sign in store windows and even two big freestanding signs on primary day.  In the same long row of stores, I caught a single of one her signs.  We are not talking a lot of money either.

Mark Gjonaj: 38.6%
Marjorie Velazquez: 34.4%
John Doyle: 19.1%
Victor Ortiz: 4.8%
Egidio Sementilli: 3.0%

The NY Daily News supported Doyle. I thought that this was in effect a good result because of some forty percent threshold to prevent a runoff.  de Blasio, e.g., avoided one the first time around by a fraction of a percent.  But, apparently it does not work that way.  Anyway, with all that money and face recognition (after all, he is the state assemblyman of the district, which I guess means if he wins in November that I'll have to vote for a new one), the fact he won by what amounted to a few hundred votes is not surprising.  If a tad depressing.  I particularly do not like people resigning from their seats for reasons other than something like appointment as a member of the Cabinet.  Going down one level and denying someone else the position is to me both unfair and not appropriate. Serve out the term you were voted to fill. 

If she is not running on that line in November, I will vote for whomever is or write in someone.  He got my vote for assembly.  There will also be ballot measures. Oh well. Got my sticker.

[Found this coverage. Can you be more depressing?]

Partisan Gerrymandering

Charles Fried, a conservative on the right side of some things (privacy outside of abortion, PPACA outside Medicaid expansion etc.), targets partisan gerrymandering. Structural issues is a big picture thing that the Resistance has to address long term.

2017: Half-way Point

Ugh.

Summer Begins ... Sigh

Summer begins and the year continues to be a bummer, including two special elections going the wrong way yesterday (Georgia/South Carolina) though them being close (usual very safe red) is of some value. Mets beaten 12-0. Older players, pitchers off injuries and second year slumps possibilities (Gsellman) made high expectations a bit overblown. But, especially with key injuries like to Thor, everything that can go wrong seems to be going wrong with little going right (Wheeler was very good for a time, but now had two horrible starts). Sigh.

4CA Decides Travel Ban Case

[There is also the special election in Montana, the end result more depressing after eventual winner attacked a reporter on election eve.  The positive is that it was a lot closer than it really had every right to be and we are not talking swing-vote territory in 2018.  The guy did lose a state-wide race for governor, but that's a more important position than one of many.  It also is a continual chain around the Republicans' neck. Still, depressing.]

Additionally, Judge [Roger] Gregory places a great deal of weight on the fact that Trump did not consult with his own agencies before announcing a sweeping change to the nation’s foreign policy. The Trump administration's claim that the Muslim ban was necessary for national security reasons “is belied by evidence in the record that President Trump issued the First Executive Order without consulting the relevant national security agencies, and that those agencies only offered a national security rationale after [this executive order] was enjoined,” Gregory wrote.

The ruling en banc (10-3, two conservatives recused, one having a family connection to the government advocate) in the travel/Muslim [to make a conclusion] ban case accelerates the trip to the Supreme Court.  The Think Progress piece might not fully address the possibilities (see below), but is a helped summary.  See also, here and related links. I admit to leaning toward advocacy here so these links lean in a certain direction.

First, the author of the main opinion is notable as the first black judge to serve on the Fourth Circuit  and conclusion of a long fight during the Clinton Administration.  Clinton finally recess appointed him at the end of his term and President Bush re-nominated him as an early sign of comity (the Senate not yet in the Democrats' hands).  Republicans argued that there were enough judges already, apparently the number of slots advisory based on need or something. This approach was appealed to again during the Obama Administration and factored in to the filibuster rule change (whatever it was technically, that is what it was in practice). 

Except that, if four years from now the United States is looking at President Rand Paul and Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley, the question of whether Chairman Grassley honors the single-senator veto will not be up to anyone other than Grassley himself.

The confirmation of Judge Gorsuch continued that rule change policy, if without similar credible justifiable grounds except for raw power.  The practice of blue slips continues to be a question, but that earlier warning appears to have been prescient except for the "Rand Paul" part (too optimistic). Somewhat as suggested in the earlier linked discussion, the concept of a blue strip (which the "blue" party now appreciates, but maybe long term might not) is not really absurd.  It is how it is carried out so that one senator (or two) has a full effective veto instead of in effect providing a sort of rebuttable presumption that something is wrong with a nominee that is of specific concern of the senator's state.  This to be is a possibly useful division of labor if not abused.  But, like the filibuster, it has been.

Moving on from this relevant aside (note the membership of the 4CA), see also here (various comments) for discussion on the travel ruling.  As I repeatedly do, find fault with the suggestion by the self-labeled Never Trump conservative author of the piece (if one who at times is in "well it's done" mode, including calling it absurd or silly to cite emoluments, possibility of 25A removal and other things)  that the case at the earliest would be heard in December. The full court of appeals addressed the revised order by late May.  It is remarkable really how quickly some of these court rulings are coming down though it might be a mixed bag on this specific matter.  If they wanted to, the Supreme Court need not wait that long.  Of course, it might be moot to some degree by then. Also, though the end result is probably expected, there is a 9CA case to be decided.

The professor elsewhere rejected the idea of using campaign statements, which is addressed in a comment. But, it's useful to note that there is a middle path here.  One concurring opinion, e.g., argued that we should and could merely rely on statements after he took his oath to reach the same result.  Candidates might change their mind or the like once they are in office, and once they are their words and actions have an additional level of importance.  Likewise, by my count, more than one concurring judge here argues Trump lacked the power to do what he did on statutory grounds.

This provides the Supreme Court a possible means to set forth a limited judgment, even if they makes some references to concerns about the religious animus point.  The specifics on that point is beyond my expertise but it has been offered as a grounds of judgment here and in the process furthers process and separation of powers ends.  As noted early on, Trump here rushed the order in a way criticized as slipshod though advancing his overall goals perhaps of making things more personal.  To the degree this is allowed, it still is a perilous approach especially by a this buffoon.

The broader approach argues that under Justice Kennedy's (with Alito though he might not go along if it is used to overturn the government) concurrence in Kerry v. Din, executive discretion involving entry on non-citizens has to meet some sort of minimum legitimate purpose test. This is a favored device of Kennedy in particular as seen in multiple cases involving the rights of homosexuals.  And, those cases also show that it has some bite, at least in cases held to be extreme.  This also gets around a 1970s case that gives broad discretion though one might [especially in respect to 1A interests] push against its validity today.

The statutory argument might be harder to make since constitutional avoidance principles counsel applying it not in the best way but in a reasonable way that avoids such problems.  But, there is comparable concern about avoiding a decision that the government is acting unconstitutionally.  Thus, the more limited judgments here are intriguing. As a whole, there are a lot of eloquent remarks, including the first few sentences of the main opinion itself.  Events meanwhile continue to occur.

Emmanuel Macron elected president of France (with around 65% of the vote)

Key factor: center right supported him over bad alternative. Cf. Republican Party/Trump.