Election Day: Do I Actually Have A Republican City Councilwoman?!

I have been working at a polling place for the last few years. I now check in voters. It is a long day (open up 5, voting 6-9, with two-hour breaks, clean-up), but I appreciate doing my small part for democracy.  

I started as an assistant for the ballot marking device (BMD), which is used to help people with disabilities to mark the ballot. Nearly no one used it when I was there. Once a blind person voted and used it. 

This year, the two assistants were very gung-ho about it. Many people used it, including those who did not have a disability. One value is that it will not let you make a mistake. It would be helpful when we have rank choice voting (local primaries), which confuses people. It is good that one woman in particular pushed its usage. Good for her to be enthusiastic.   

Elections in New York City are usually not too dramatic. There were very few surprises this year. One bit of history is that one of the wrongly convicted "Central Park Five" (Trump wanted them executed at the time, paying for a full-page ad) was elected to the city council.  

The ticket in my district had multiple uncontested candidates (district attorney and judges) as well as two generally [note that qualifier!] funding ballot measures (small school districts and sewers).  The two ballot measures easily passed by 75/25 type numbers.  

The one competitive race was city council, one first termer against another newcomer.  One article from yesterday noted:

[Kristy] Marmorato took a hard stance against a proposal to house former inmates with medical needs in a facility within Jacobi Medical Center. Marmorato said it was the Jacobi proposal that compelled her to mount a run.

I wrote about this local controversy earlier this year. City Councilmember Marjorie Velázquez, the incumbent, was not a supporter of the location. She was not as "hard" about it from what I can tell, but it is not like she was a supporter. Personally, I thought the whole thing was a scare campaign. This is what "compelled" Marmorato to run? Having a halfway house in a hospital complex, five minutes or so away from a police station?

The turnout, even with many days of early voting, was fairly impressive at my polling location. A quick check did not suggest to me that there was a notable influx of Republican voters (my immediate area has a conservative party office that still has a picture of the most conservative candidate in the primary, who lost, outside) though did not do a close analysis. 

The district as a whole is something like 60/40 Democrat, which is not too blue for the Bronx. Still, the last Republican who won the city council was around twenty years ago.  So, it is a tad stunning (maybe if voters expected it more, more Democrats would have turned out) that as of now, it looks like the Republican won. The small group of Republicans in the city council will not increase since in "the most closely watched race," one lost.

[ETA: With a hat tip to Bing "Copilot Chat," which is helpful to get information with links, I found out that each district has around 10x more voters than those that took part in the local city council race. A result of less than ten percent of the electorate is a democracy failure.]

A reflection of turnover and how a relatively small number of voters can matter, reports are those conservative party voters -- KM ran on the Republican and Conservative Party line while MV only ran on the Democratic Party line ... no Working Family candidacy -- was the difference. The current results cite her winning 792 votes on that line.

The split is 5863 vs. 5779 in favor of the Democrats without the conservative voters.  The incumbent would in that match-up win by less than one hundred votes (fewer votes than the write-ins). The counting is not complete but a seven-hundred vote deficit is seriously an uphill battle. 

There was an op-ed arguing that New York should not have off-year elections. There were some very important ones, including protecting reproductive liberty in Ohio, re-election of a Democratic governor in Kentucky, and Democratic control of the Virginia legislature.  

I think there is some value in having an election focused on local issues. Nonetheless, I think having the city council elections in even off-year elections (so overlapping with House and Senate races) does make sense. Small turnouts might not matter most of the time. But, there still are close races. My own district underlines that rather starkly.

I am concerned that more people do not vote. The lack of information many have about judicial races and ballot measures is bothersome. I continue to think judicial races, the candidates mostly chosen behind the scenes with few options to pick from without much information provided to the voters, is a sham choice. And, a few ballot measures are appropriate. My role in sewer funding, however, is unclear to me.  

A final problem that arises is that people still do not know what polling place they are assigned. I would estimate at least twenty people came to the polling place by mistake, though happily a sizable subset only had to walk a few minutes away. An absentee ballot is tedious (you have to fill out a detailed envelope, with small print that one elderly voter simply could not read; the BMD is not set up for it either) and is not encouraged.  

Overall, my city council representative (bothersome, but it remains to be seen how she governs) aside, the Democrats had a good time of it. Ohio not only protected reproductive liberty (more than abortion rights) but supported marijuana legalization. A good salve after the NYT dropped a scary poll that Trump still leads in several key swing states. 

My polling place was down to one voter check-in table. This meant a busy time for a few periods. I am rather sure that one table would not work in a presidential year. But, it wasn't too heavy for us to handle. And, it helped pass the time. Overall, it was a low-drama day internally.

The relatively heavy turnout did lead to a late shortage of stylus pens (with little rubber tips for voters to sign in, and the pens to fill out the ballots). We had enough stickers. And, it was nice to see many couples and people with children (young and teens) come to vote. A couple had dogs, which are technically not allowed. Perhaps, they were special support animals!

ETA: My city councilwoman had radio silence, including not giving a statement to the press and posting a standard tweet about official happenings, after the race was called. She has now conceded. 

Regarding her statement, I too want "fear" (see her opponent's reason for running) to not be our driver. A reference is made to some Bruckner Boulevard housing development matter, which I simply don't care about. Not saying the issue is not important. Just saying it was not on my radar.

(This NYT analysis argues MV's support, a flipflop after she determined it was the right thing to do, on the Bruckner Boulevard measure was the deciding factor. I don't know. I would need to see the vote breakdown. 

The city council vote was unanimous but perhaps the local rep's vote mattered. It would help if I was told if that was the case. The issue involved additional multi-residence housing. This adds context to the winner's comment about locals having power over their communities.)  

Her opponent talked about neighborhoods not having a say, which seems to be at least in part a nod to the halfway house. A small segment of people were upset at that and they had their say. Sigh. 

SCOTUS Watch: Order Day

SCOTUS often releases a mini-order list on Friday before their scheduled Order Day. The Friday release often grants one or more cases for full review. The Order List on Monday is a vanilla one.

So it went this time. The Friday orders had a bit of a gun theme. The issue of "bump stocks" (which the Trump Administration regulated) now gets full Supreme Court attention. A bit from the Washington Post:

The Biden administration had asked the Supreme Court to reverse a lower-court ruling against the ban on the devices, which speed up how quickly bullets can be fired when attached to rifles.

Americans bought 520,000 bump stocks during the period in which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives allowed them. The rule requires owners to either surrender or destroy devices they lawfully obtained.

The challenge is on statutory grounds. If the Second Amendment comes up, it would not be surprising. For instance, constitutional avoidance is a principle that you avoid certain interpretations if reasonably possible to stop unconstitutional results. The regulation in its own limited way is notably broad. The "surrender or destroy" rule is something gun regulators usually only dream about.   

The NRA also accuses the head of New York’s Department of Financial Services of coercion. She urged banks and insurance companies that did business in New York to consider the “reputational risks” from doing business with gun-rights groups like the NRA, and she encouraged them to cut their ties with the group. Triggered much?

The third case involves an arbitration dispute. Arbitration, which results in fewer rights to go to court, has come up in multiple cases for some time now.

===

As expected, the Monday Order List was short and basic. 

Likewise, as usual, I think they should provide more clarity (including a FAQ) to help describe such terms as "certificate of appealability" (habeas term). Also, it would be helpful if we knew why Barrett and Gorsuch did not take part in the decision regarding two cert. denials.   

There is an execution scheduled this week. The Supreme Court also might address various petitions on the "shadow docket" (did you read Steve Vladeck's book yet?). So, there might be one or more orders dropped during the week. There is a conference on Thursday (Friday is a holiday). 

The big news this week (so far) is an important case involving keeping guns away from some people found guilty of domestic violence. Two other oral arguments (Monday and Wednesday) also will take place. 

The gun case is on Election Day, which in 2016 was a major reason why we have as much of a corrupt tainted Court as we have now. Ohio also will vote on a ballot measure to protect reproductive liberty, again much more greatly at risk because of the Supreme Court. Other elections have court flavor as well.

New York 2023 Early Voting Begins

The early voting for New York elections began today.

Off-year elections are important in the United States. We do not just have presidential elections or even congressional elections (every two years, a third of the U.S. Senate each time). There are a slew of others, including for state governors and a ballot measure that could bring reproductive liberty to Ohio. Other elections are still important on a local basis. 

New York City is largely a Democratic town though a few Republicans now manage to win city council seats. My Bronx district is one of the few races labeled competitive. So, when I went to my nearby early voting location [not all polling places, but a good many, more were added last year], there was a competitive race for me.  

FIND YOUR POLLING PLACE

However, the uncompetitive nature of the area is suggested by the Bronx district attorney candidate running unopposed. This is a dubious Republican choice for an important state office [DA is a state officer; it does not have ranked choice voting during the primary].  It is a good policy to at least run a candidate to promote the brand as well as individual people.

There are also local judicial races. I never found these sensible. The choices are selected by some sort of commission or whatever. Who knows. The voting guide you are sent in the mail needs to address the question, including providing the names of those on the ballot. The judges regularly run unopposed. I regularly write in one or more protest votes.

Democracy is very important. It should be carefully used. This includes providing a well-run election system with broad suffrage. 

Nonetheless, there should be some care on what the people vote for. Some positions (and issues) are better left to our representatives. The people are asked to vote for judges here with very little information. This is beyond the dangers of popular elections of judges generally, including partisanship infecting justice. It is a sham of a choice. 

[ETA: Here is more on judicial races, including boroughs where there is actually competition. So, the choices are mostly made by insiders, and this gives a Potemkin Village sort of gloss of democratic legitimacy? Okay.]

The Ohio referendum to place reproductive liberty in the state constitution is an important way for the people to express their will. Ohio is a gerrymandered state. Direct democracy is most appropriate when there is a concern that normal republican (small 'r') measures do not work fairly. 

The two proposals on the New York ballot are another matter. They involve important issues involving funding small city school districts and sewer funding. The state constitution requires a public vote before the fiscal changes, which does not seem to have much opposition at all [this time, the voting guide did discuss it; no opposition was noted], are passed. 

Nonetheless, it is a dubious method of direct democracy. Why should people in New York City have much say at all about how small city school districts fund themselves?  What does the average voter know about sewer funding? These are specialized items that should be hashed out by others. 

I think in New York there are limited measures that are sensible things the public at large reasonably would vote for. For instance, if a state constitutional amendment strengthened reproductive liberty or changed how we voted. A permanent no-excuse mail-in voting provision, for instance. The two measures, which I voted "yes" each time since I did not understand anyone really thought otherwise, are not that.  

Anyway, I again did my civic duty. I received my free sticker and kept the stylus pen (little rubber top to sign in, pen to fill in the ballot). New York does not provide a receipt to the voter, which is somewhat dubious. But, the whole thing went smoothly. The privacy booth was a bit too close to one of the tables. You should do something about that.

I have some interest in this whole voting thing since on Election Day I will be a poll worker. Do your part. Educate yourself.  Vote.  

Get a sticker.  

ETA: Saw an article in the NY Daily News, on Sunday, that the Conservative Party is against both proposals. Okay. Anyway. 

Local City Council Race

I live in an Italian rich neighborhood that decades back was represented in government by at least one Republican. A political office nearby still has the conservative candidate in the city council primary in its window. 

Kristy Marmorato, the Republican X-ray technician running against New York City Council Member Marjorie Velázquez in the Bronx, has been endorsed by several prominent individuals with close ties to former President Donald Trump.

So, it is not too surprising that the city council race is one of the most competitive. It is also not surprising that the Republican candidate has Trump connections. Having someone who is Proud Boy-friendly, still, is not really a good endorsement to have for this area. It still is at best moderate Republican as a whole, even if it did go for a clearly unqualified guy running for mayor vs. a former cop who is far from liberal. 

The main thing the Republicans might have going for them is that voters are not too knowledgeable about the details. I do not claim to know much about either candidate. I was annoyed the incumbent opposed a local site for a halfway house but did not keep track of the Bruckner Blvd thing. 

There are a handful of Republicans in the City Council, including the woman who decided to take a gun to a political rally. The Bronx district attorney (a state race) election does not seem like it is close. I checked and a summary of the two ballot measures -- as referenced recently -- noted that there was apparently no opposition to them either.  

So, it's notable if there is a competitive race here. By the way, a local dollar store recently opened near me, across from the post office. It is now closed with a sign referencing safety to consumers and staff. A Facebook discussion said there was a robbery though the councilwoman's office has not heard about it. A bit of direct involvement in the acts of the day. 

===

Prof. Eric Segall is against applying the 14A, sec. 3 measure to Trump. His overall reason is prudential, which is an appropriate aspect of constitutional analysis. I question his reasoning (see also this overheated discussion, which tosses in a misleading analysis of what is covered) there. 

My basic argument is that -- to the degree we can reasonably predict -- if the Supreme Court actually upheld a claim (far from likely; more likely it never would be decided or would be punted), the Republican Party would pick someone else. The public, watching Trump be criminally tried (a top figure in the conspiracy, Sidney Powell, pled guilty in Georgia), would find this a reasonable approach. Some will grumble, but most will accept it.

(See, e.g., Bush v. Gore. )

There would not be some violent overthrow of peace and safety. If this occurred in late 2024, yes, I can see that being problematic. But, I don't think that will happen. I surely don't want to imagine a situation where Trump actually legitimately won the relevant popular votes. And, 14A, sec. 3 battles to me are going to be the least of our concerns then. 

But, fine,  putting aside that his tone is rather assured (this is a guy begging people to support Michael Bloomberg in 2020) at times. I am much less supportive of him and others trying to toss in a bunch of bogus arguments to stack the argument about how "difficult" the question is. 

The arguments are repeatedly lame. The title alone. What "chaos"? There would be an extended, peaceful, process, with lots of bottlenecks that make this whole thing largely academic. The provision applies to presidents. Not a serious argument. And, it is not limited to the Civil War. The Constitution is for today. The language doesn't suggest that. And so on.

The need for federal enabling legislation argument is more serious though it's still weak. It is at best a prudential thing. It does not really work as applied to state offices, which the provision covers, even there. The amendment gives power to Congress to enforce the provision, just as it has the power to clarify what "privileges" or "immunities" are and so on.

Who enforces the provision and who is a serious question with strong political question vibes. For instance, the president has strong foreign policy authority, which needs congressional involvement (such as funding). There are constitutional duties there. The argument here is more than that. Segall wants the provision not to be applied at all. So, in effect, nullify it. 

The final question covered is the application of "insurrection" to Trump. Again, it is not just about him. Still, this is a complicated factual question. I covered this before and think the answer is "yes." 

It is not just about criminal provisions directly about "insurrection." It is about the constitutional reach of the provision. Consider. Is the argument that if a state denies someone an office, except for a few people convicted for sedition or the like, they acted unconstitutionally?  

Michael Dorf noted on social media he disagreed with Eric Segall and would respond. He has not of this writing though said in the past that he supported the arguments of the other side overall. 

Odds and Ends

With Love, From Cool World is not a great title but the book does have a nice cover. It is also an overall good read, a well written romance that juggles various serious issues, including foster care and LGBTQ+ acceptance.

New York has a couple state constitutional ballot measures on the ballot. I think it's stupid since the average person really has little knowledge on these issues. But, a vote is necessary, and this provides some useful info.

Jim Jordan, the insurrectionist, unhinged, sexual abuse ignoring guy, got 200 votes for Speaker of the House. A travesty, but not quite enough. Better luck tomorrow. Meanwhile, the Rangers are up 2-0, and the Diamondbacks (hoping to win at least a game or two) are down 1-0. Not too excited about most of the MLB teams left. Phils have talent. Yippee.

Right to Reproductive Freedom Ballot Measure

Republicans in Ohio don't want a reproductive rights ballot measure to simply be allowed to be voted upon normally. 

First, they tried making ballot measures harder to pass. Now, the summary is being played around with. Note how they are using the usual buzzwords ("abortion" and "unborn child"):

In the new version, that section becomes: “Prohibit the citizens of the State of Ohio from directly or indirectly burdening, penalizing, or prohibiting abortion before an unborn child is determined to be viable, unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means."

The ballot measure is not just about abortion. It is a reproductive health measure, just as the constitutional right of abortion is part of a wider collection of rights.  The full text does provide some "small print" on the limits of abortion rights but the summary still is not a fair summary of its breadth. The opening of the measure seems a good summary:

Every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one’s own pregnancy, miscarriage care, and abortion.

Consider part of the summary in Roe v. Wade of the right to privacy with the case citations removed:

[This right of privacy] has some extension to activities relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child-rearing and education.

Dobbs claims there is no right to choose an abortion but that its ruling does not interfere with other rights.  Justice Thomas concurred to say that he would go further.  The dissent says "Don't you believe it."  And, lower courts are starting to use it to water down trans rights.  

The right to choose an abortion is part of a collection of rights necessary for liberty and equality.  Ohio's ballot measure recognizes that what is at stake is not some "right to abortion" but a wider matter of reproductive decision-making.  The summary makes it about "unborn children" and "abortion."  

It's bullshit.  

ETA: This article provides a good analysis of the situation, including an additional concern regarding the use of "pregnant woman" instead of the more generic "pregnant patient."  The measure is not just about women -- men use contraceptives -- and "women" are not the only people who get pregnant.  It is not only a trans, non-binary, or queer issue. What of girls? 

Primary Day

The GM blathered some and the owner is scheduled to talk today. Meanwhile, David Peterson (after battling but not breaking during the first inning), actually had a good game. 

And, so did the Mets. They had good games before amid this extended horrible stretch. And, the Brewers are just a mediocre team. So, don't be too excited. But, it's nice when it happens.

===

Tuesday was primary day and I am an "inspector" (I'm at the table to check in voters) from 5 A.M. to 9:30 PM or so (polls are open 6-9, and the rest is set up and clean up).  I didn't see the game though checked in a bit as I did with the morning Supreme Court opinion announcements.  

The New York Daily News summary is here with some discussion of races in my own area. The city council offices are term-limited and now shorter.  Overall, there will be some turnover, and it appears at least a couple more Republicans (still very much a minority in the city council).  And, the winners of all the races won't be immediately known.  That is a general lesson in recent years, most noticeably in the 2020 presidential elections and the Georgia senate races with significant effects on the Senate.  

Early voting (6/17-6/25) and the usual low turnout of primary elections, especially in a non-presidential year (even then, the race is generally settled before NY) or congressional primary (the AOC race was low turnout) meant not too many voters showed up.  I would say around 70 in total.

The election in my district chose city council members (there were Republican and conservative choices though [1] I know of none of the latter that showed up -- I know a few personally that could have if they wanted to do so, except maybe one who said he was conservative and wasn't actually labeled as such, so voted absentee [2] the three candidates on the separate conservative line [the first time since 2019 that I know of there being one for a primary] were all also running Republican. 

A primary election keeps local people honest and now and then (AOC!) there is an upset.  My city councilwoman received about sixty-five percent of the vote when I checked the results last night. The opponent that received the most votes received about 25%.  Now, this was a ranked choice affair [we gave voters an instruction card though a few were still confused], so, in the end, the other candidates were eliminated.  So, this is the "first round."

The Republican and conservative races (three candidates) were closer with two candidates splitting the votes (last night, one was winning the Republican line while the other -- with a few hundred votes total all around -- of the two slightly winning the conservative) with a third (who a co-worker noted was an extreme sort, including being a vaccine truther) coming up behind.  As one voter noted, it's nice for the other party to have a chance.  And, though the person is not likely to win, my area does have some conservative-leaning voters -- back in the day, Republicans won.

The rather historical moment this time is that Yusef Salaam one of the so-called "Central Park Five," who were wrongly charged with a heinous rape, won his race. He is a political newcomer and ran against two city council people.  So, it is pretty impressive for that reason too. Congratulations. 

There were local judicial races (which I continue to generally think is stupid, largely since basically no one knows who these people are), but none in my district.  The other race was for Bronx district attorney, which is a state office. So, no ranked choice, though there were two options. No Republican candidate either, which seems a bit of a wasted opportunity for that side to promote itself.  The challenger (who I voted for) received about a quarter of the vote.  The Queens DA also didn't have too much of a scare.

The primary system is a somewhat flawed one though ranked-choice voting helps. It would have been better if the federal race in one crowed Manhattan campaign in 2022 had it, instead of the winner being able to eke through with less than thirty percent of the vote.  Dan Goldman is doing a good job but there is a good chance that he would have been eliminated in a ranked-choice race since over 50% of his opponents were more liberal.

The low turnout is one problem. This aggravates the tendency of more ideologically stronger and at times weaker in-value candidates winning the races. So, we have two candidates in the general that the voters as a whole might not have picked otherwise.  A few states try various methods around this (including so-called "jungle primaries") that might have some merit.

Overall, primaries are a chance for voters to do their part.  It is a time to honor those who do their civil responsibilities.  And, it is appreciated that so many do show up though many more really should.  As to our polling place, after a bit of a foul-up (we had to open a bit late since tables and chairs were delayed -- only a 30m delay though), it went fine enough.  

The basic issue with working the polls is boredom.  It's a long day -- it might be better if they have two shifts but hey appreciate the full day's pay -- and there were hours when only a few voters showed up.  Still, it was okay in the end, and it moves by. I appreciate doing something where there are more things to do.  The people (this time there was one) who float around to help the voters have a lot less to do.  

I know.  I had that job once (technically, I was one of two helping with the ballot reading machine that is used mainly by those with special conditions, such as the blind, which one person used last election -- that I know of -- and that time, two did, and once there was some screw up).  There was actually a bit of a controversy about someone assigned to the machine supposedly telling a voter who wanted to use it that he didn't know how. 

This was observed by an election monitor so that wasn't ideal.  We were required to do more hands-on training with the machine this time.  Not much but maybe the people specifically given that job (though that is not all they do) are given more.  As would the supervisors.  

There is also a requirement that things are politically balanced. Each table is supposed to have a Democratic and Republican monitor. If you help a voter while they fill out a ballot, a worker of both parties is supposed to be present.  Uh-huh.  Not followed here.  This election -- as was the case in past primaries -- the tables have one election inspector. 

There is a lot of signage.  The one other thing I'll say is that I like the pens.  They also have a rubber tip -- you sign in when you come to vote, which is also a sort of fraud device since you can match signatures and it shows someone voted.  The rubber tip is used to sign in to the little election pad. the voter gets to keep the pen, which also serves as a sort of stylus.  

Some Good Judicial Confirmations / More Please!

While the criminal case against Trump is monopolizing headlines, there was unrelated big news this week. Four judicial nominees with impeccable civil rights credentials were confirmed to the federal bench. Four confirmations in a week is good progress, but this is just a start to what the Senate needs to do to make up for lost time. Judge Hernán Vera was originally nominated on September 20, 2021, Judge Dale Ho was nominated on September 30, 2021, Judge Nusrat Choudhury on January 19, 2022, and Judge P. Casey Pitts on September 6, 2022. It should not take the Senate a combined five years plus to confirm four exceptional candidates. Our point is this, nobody benefits from waiting. The Senate needs to pick up its pace in confirmations!

I share the American Constitutional Society's sentiments.  

It is fine for Democrats to celebrate their accomplishments, including legislative successes, nominations, an African-American woman as vice president, and the beginnings of justice coming for Trump's many crimes (and those who worked him in various respects, including the ongoing 1/6 prosecutions).  People at times grumble about them doing too little.

It is great that -- after around two years -- Dale Ho (the voting rights litigator) was confirmed.  Ditto (by the same 50-49 vote, Manchin dissenting, Scott absent) the first Muslim woman on the federal bench.  Three cheers for ACLU representation! Julie Rikelman, a reproductive rights advocate and Ukrainian-American, will soon follow. Two Republicans actually supported her.  

But, we cannot rest on our laurels. The numbers of judicial confirmations are somewhat padded since they are mostly district court slots and from blue states.  And, the Trump side for the mother lode: three Supreme Court justices and the end of abortion rights.  Even if state courts, including now Iowa (if 3-3), are partially still protecting them in various respects.

This is why Dianne Feinstein not retiring and being absent for months is a problem.  It is why Sen. Dick "Let's be reasonable / I'm concerned!" Durbin, Chair of the Judiciary Committee, playing nice (we can't do away with blue slips! We can't try to deal with Tuberville blocking military promotions while he is away, that's bad form!)  is so aggravating.

The Democrats do not have the House and might lose the Senate again after the 2024 elections.  They have to use the power they have to address the situation.  This includes confirming as many people as possible.  It means strongly responding to the Supreme Court's ethics problems, which is not just concerned noises and a bill (eventually) that can be filibustered and/or blocked by the House.  How about subpoenas?  Not just "please" letters!

==

Meanwhile, as noted in Around the World in Eighty Days, the U.S. always seems to be having elections. There are some important ones this year, including special House seats, all the way up to governor races.

New York City has local elections.  Today began early voting, which gave me my free pen and sticker along with my civic duty vibes.  And, on the regular primary day, I will do my usual poll worker thing.  Check-in table, 6 AM - 9 PM. 

It is all connected -- power comes in many forms, including local government.  All the same, nothing too big for me.  

The city council race (the one using ranked voting) is the incumbent (fine enough) vs. a bunch of nonentities (no one worth even ranking, including more than one conservative-leaning sort).  

The Bronx district attorney race is a state one and is therefore not subject to rank voting. My DA from what I can tell is doing a decent enough job but from what I read about her opponent, she's good too. She is promoting herself as more liberal.  I voted for her; either will do.  

And, I wait, for more prosecution news and more. 

Supreme Court Watch

Wisconsin Supreme Court Race

I talked about the book A Right To Lie, which had a chapter on a draw-out ethical dispute involving one of the conservative justices. State, that is. 

It ultimately split the Wisconsin Supreme Court evenly, the justice himself recusing from the dispute.  We also had bad feelings that ratcheted so high that one justice accused another of choking her.  This is the era that brought us Scott Walker and ultimately the state voting for Trump.  

Things have gone somewhat better in the Trump Midwest, especially in Michigan.  Wisconsin has a Democrat as governor, even if he is a bit alone as is the case in North Carolina.  But, unlike there, we have good news on the Supreme Court front.  After two of their justices were on Strict Scrutiny Podcast (though not because of!), the liberal-leaning option won a big election.  We will have a 4-3 (six women!) liberal learning court.  

The hope, for instance, is that such a court will help address the blatant partisan gerrymandering in that state.  We shall see.   

Order List

The election (the progressive Democrat also won the Chicago mayoral run-off) happened on Tuesday, but it is worthy of a lead.  The Monday Order List was basically low-key, except for another dissent by Justice Jackson (now joined by both Sotomayor and Kagan) involving a high-profile death penalty case. 

Jackson is starting to get a reputation for these crisp, few pages criminal justice dissents.  After all, her criminal justice props, including as a member of the Sentencing Commission, was one thing her supporters felt would provide good potential.  I do wish she said a bit more about those final death penalty orders (pro forma "no comments") though. 

Joan Biskupic Book

Top Supreme Court journalist, Joan Biskupic, has various books under her belt already, including about John Roberts and Sonia Sotomayor. Nine Black Robes, which promises to provide some inside material about the road to the Trump Judge Era, already is getting some positive props.  

And, its launch day was only Tuesday.  I was somewhat underwhelmed by Linda Greenhouse's "first year of Barrett" book, thinking it didn't really tell us more than what was already in the news.  It was a decent summary, especially for those less aware of things.  I think the Blackmun book was a better summary of things.  Different type of book, but I liked it better. 

I think this book will have some more material though at times we should be careful about one person's insights.  I thought the "big reveal" about Roberts' choices in the PPACA Cases was a bit exaggerated.  I still am not sure exactly what happened there.  

Thomas Yet Again 

Also in the news (again -- the article cites the matter covered over a decade ago): Thomas' ethical problems.  

The head of the Senate Judiciary Committee promises something will be done and re-upped calls for a binding ethics policy.  Democrats just might have the juice to force that into a budget measure.  Will see.  Good message. But, enough with mere words. These people are not going to be shamed into action.  

Thomas defended himself partially with an "innocent look" defense that gives the breadth of involvement and past actions regarding lack of disclosure don't come off as too credible.  But, you know, it just underlines the limits of a "trust us" approach here.  

Steve Vladeck on Twitter argued we should focus on stronger control of the courts to address ongoing problems.  I think that only goes too far -- I think his comments tend to handwave concerns about specific justices as if addressing them is "partisan" or something -- but that's part of the correct response.  So, on this issue, a binding ethics rule is valid.  

Orders: Trans 

After holding on to it longer than some court watchers deemed normal, SCOTUS rejected West Virginia's request to enforce a state law barring transgender girls from girls' sports teams against a 12-year-old wanting to compete on her middle-school track team while litigation continues.

Alito (with Thomas) with a brief public dissent, granting the state delayed challenging it and so on, but you know, putting that aside, they wanted to use the emergency [shadow] docket to hold things up. Sure.  So, it took longer for this bit of hypocrisy? 

Some reports, as tends to happen when SCOTUS merely fails to intervene, probably implies to some this matters more than it really does. Trans issues continue to be the ongoing issue of the day, including being a sort of acceptable demonization target in various states. 

This whole thing is "to be continued" with a Biden agency proposal (which will take time to finalize) that has received some criticism but also very well might be a reasonable approach.  

Next Up

The next thing on the actual SCOTUS schedule is a conference and opinion release day next Friday (4/14).