A POLITICAL SEA CHANGE IN WASHINGTON COUNTY

Historically, local politics were by nature a predictable, mundane affair. After all, voters were less concerned about the party affiliation of the local tax collector, recorder of deeds or director of elections. Whatever local political party was in charge, the potholes still needed to be filled, the police and fire departments maintained, taxes collected and polling places made ready for elections. Local citizens who were competent at performing their responsibilities were often elected repeatedly with little fanfare. 

Local politics have changed dramatically in the Trump era. Republicans have discovered that “bottom up”, ideological battles, beginning in local elections may hold the key to their future. First, local voter registration has gained new importance, even in rural areas that vote Republican. There is the realization that every vote is important in a country with a larger Democratic advantage. Second, Republican local officials can provide a fertile inventory of battle-tested right-wing politicians willing to move up the ladder to run for state and perhaps national office. Third, and most important, because elections are administered at the local level, the former president’s “big lie” challenging the election process has added political value to being the party that controls how voting is conducted in local communities.

The injection of extreme conservatives and Trump supporters into local politics is having a profound influence on how local jurisdictions are governed. In many communities (including Washington County) Democrats have been missing in action when it comes to offering a rational alternative to what I will call “local government based on Trumpism.”  This commentary will examine this troubling movement in Washington County, an excellent example of what is happening in many other communities.

Less than a decade ago Washington County was solidly Democratic with a tradition that reached back into the 1930s depression. A majority of the local Democratic voters did not consider themselves liberals. However, they were proud of their Democratic Party heritage and favored a local government that was thrifty with public funds and addressed the basic needs of county citizens.  Elected Democrats most often shared these beliefs.

Each election cycle two Democratic Commissioners were returned to office to serve with one minority Republican. The other county-wide offices were filled with elected Democrats. Over time, these dedicated elected officials became skilled at running county government, hired an efficient staff, and kept taxes low.

Most important of all, these Democratic elected officials knew what the public wanted. A majority fought against tax reassessment because of the cost and taxpayers wishes, even though it was court mandated. Unlike more liberal communities that banned fracking for environmental reasons, oil and gas exploration was encouraged. Local farmers wanted income from leases, and the business community wanted drilling jobs. With the exception of a few bad apples, local government ran smoothly, and the economy exceeded expectations.

Three occurrences brought about a political sea change. First, manufacturing and labor unions favorable to Democrats disappeared in Washington County and white nativism took its place. Second, an influx of Republicans moved into Washington County’s bedroom communities, seeking to escape the higher taxes and liberal bent of Allegheny County. The Democratic voter registration advantage began slipping away.  Third, a vocal group of radical conservatives, using Trump like tactics, viciously and unfairly attacked the manner in which Democrats governed Washington County.

In the last several election cycles, the Democratic apparatus, which had performed well for decades, was torn apart. With the exception of the county court system, Republicans were firmly in control. The majority was now composed of traditional Republicans and a new group of unqualified mischief-makers.

Fortunately, for Washington County, the Republican Chairman of the Board of Commissioners, Diana Irey Vaughn, had long served in county government. Though a staunch conservative, she understood that a county administration needed the support of knowledgeable civil servants. Chairman Irey Vaughn wanted to govern Washington County in a manner similar to the many other Pennsylvania counties with a history of traditional Republican rule.

Following the last local election, the more radical elected Republicans did not accept the premise that public service was the goal of good government. Instead, they sought agitation and retaliation against their detractors. Republicans elected to the normally sedate clerical row offices sought to expand their influence by challenging both the majority Republican Board of Commissioners and the Court system. Within months, there were calls to replace Irey Vaughn and Nick Sherman for not following the Trump playbook. These radicals, ill-equipped for the offices they hold, are inspired by the Trumpian goals of power at any cost, revenge, personal attacks on public servants and placing right-wing officials in office willing to overturn legitimate election results.

I have witnessed the harm that occurred in Allegheny County in the 1990s when two irresponsible Republican Commissioners gained power and decimated county government. The harm to citizens was substantial and long lasting.  It could easily happen here.

It is time for local Democrats to step up and forcefully push back against the Republicans employing Trumpian tactics to get elected. Well-qualified candidates must be recruited for the next election cycle to prevent a meltdown in county government.  

If this means joining forces with traditional Republicans who are in a better position to win, so be it. Congressional Democrats have joined forces with Liz Chaney for the limited purpose of defeating the spread of a dangerous threat. Washington County Democrats can do the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

MORE GUNS, FEWER ABORTIONS

 

In one week, the United States Supreme Court took the country to a more dangerous place. First, a majority of the Justices limited a state’s authority to regulate open carry of a firearm. This decision was quickly followed by an opinion, which overturned Roe v. Wade, returning the power to regulate abortions to the individual states. It is likely that more Americans will die as the result of expanded gun violence and substandard maternity care, than life preserved by prohibiting abortions in some states. This irony did not occur to the Justices or to Republicans praising both opinions.

For conservative members of the Supreme Court the concept of “originalism” has become a convenient theory.  It now justifies the Court’s reshaping of our society, grossly out of touch with the rest of the world and the expectations of Americans. The historical standard for judging gun control has returned to the 1790s and to the 1850s for abortion.

Originalists believe that the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted.”  These Justices claim that the original meaning of constitutional texts can be discerned through legal documents from which the text was borrowed. In addition, intent can be inferred from historical events and public debate that gave rise to an original constitutional provision. 

Originalism is best contrasted as a theory of constitutional interpretation with the more liberal concept of “living constitutionalism.” Living constitutionalists believe that the meaning of the text changes over time, as modern social attitudes change on subjects ranging from the environment to same sex marriage. These living changes to the Constitution can occur even without the adoption of a formal amendment.

In a 6-3 decision the Supreme Court struck down New York’s century-old gun law against concealed carry. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority, set out to upgrade the gun carry provision of the Second Amendment to a core constitutional right equal to free speech. In fact, there is little evidence that this was the original intent of the founders who wrote the Constitution. Instead, Thomas cherry-picks portions of old opinions and misstates American history to support his theory. A blistering dissent by liberal justice Stephen Breyer calls the Thomas approach “law office history” an unsound form of legal analysis that distorts history to fit the desired ends favored by a justice.

Shortly after the gun carry case was decided, the bombshell opinion rejecting abortion was published in a 5-4 decision. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority: “The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”  

Most troubling, there is now precedent for overturning any number of fundamental entitlements that purportedly do not have grounding “in our nation’s history.” The list of liberties now open to attack include interracial marriage, contraception, the right not to be  sterilized, the “right to engage in consensual” and private “same-sex intimacy” and the right to same-sex marriage.

There has not been a Supreme Court this far to the right since the early days of the New Deal. At that time, the only significant rights recognized by the conservative Court were of large corporations and southern segregationists. Nonetheless, many Supreme Court watchers were confident that the present Court would not upset the social fabric of America and interpret the Constitution by the originalist standards of 1787.

First, it was felt that the application of case precedent (stare decisis) would constrain right-wing overreach. In the past conservative Courts have reached liberal results because their decision was the best reading of existing law. Moreover, the three most recently confirmed Justices had made promises under oath to the Senate that stare decisis would be followed in deciding cases.

Second, it is important for the Court to present an appearance of non-partisan openness and legitimacy on controversial decisions. This was particularly true at a time when Justice Thomas’s’ wife was under scrutiny for her involvement in the former president’s election fraud scheme.

Third, observers felt the Court would be sensitive to public opinion on controversial constitutional issues, so that their decision will be widely accepted. This would be important before invaliding a long-standing gun carry regulation or reversing a fundamental right like abortion that has stood for fifty years.

The Court watchers were wrong. These two opinions make it clear that this Court will ignore case precedent, will ignore the efforts of Chief Justice Roberts to maintain the appearance of a court above partisan politics and is willing to give up its legitimacy by banning long held regulations and liberties.

I will conclude with the apt comments of Jeannie Suk Gersen in the New Yorker:  “It is galling to read the Court’s righteous condemnation of Roe v. Wade as an exercise of “raw judicial power,” and its self-portrayal as a picture of proper judicial restraint. It is hard to imagine something more like an exercise of raw judicial power than the Court’s removal of the right to abortion, which is precisely what these Justices were put on the Court to achieve. As the dissent put it, the Court is “rescinding an individual right in its entirety and conferring it on the State, an action the Court takes for the first time in history.” (New Yorker June 24, 2022)

 

 

NATIONAL INVESTIGATIONS HAVE CHANGED FOR THE WORSE

 

Once upon a time, national investigations were bipartisan affairs designed to provide complete, unvarnished historical prospective to the most horrific events in American history. Investigations were designed to answer difficult questions and to unite the country. For example, the 1963 investigation of the John F. Kennedy assassination by the Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby had acted alone. Commission findings led to recommendations for improving Presidential protection. 

The U.S. Senate Watergate Committee conducted hearings in 1973 that determined President Nixon had approved plans to cover up his administration’s involvement in the Watergate break-in. Based on the evidence, Republican Senator Barry Goldwater and others convinced Nixon to resign before he was impeached.

The 2002 9/11 bipartisan commission provided a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It also gave recommendations designed to guard against future aggression.

The constitution provides that Congress is to exercise its power of inquiry in order to conduct oversight and to inform the public. Over the years. Congress has probed issues such as interstate commerce, Ku Klux Klan activities, the sinking of R.M.S. Titanic, Wall Street banking practices, organized crime, anti-union activity and the Vietnam War.

Since the 9/11 Commission, national investigations have changed for the worse. This commentary will examine several recent examples, which have degenerated into angry, partisan affairs. The two Republican probes discussed below did more to divide the country than to inform the public.

The Benghazi Investigation.  Ten investigations were conducted into the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Six of these were convened by Republican-controlled House committees. The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Intelligence Committee both concluded that there was no deliberate wrongdoing by the Obama administration.

Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State during the attack and became the Republicans’ main Benghazi target as she prepared to run for president in 2016. The GOP went after Clinton by creating one last investigative unit in the House. All pretense of bipartisanship was abandoned. After spending more than seven million dollars in additional taxpayer funds the evidence once again failed to uncover any wrongdoing.

The Mueller Investigation. This Special Counsel probe was an investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 American elections. Links between associates of Donald Trump and Russian officials and possible obstruction of Justice by President Trump and his associates were also investigated.  Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team indicted or got guilty pleas from 34 people including six former Trump advisers, 26 Russian nationals and three Russian companies. Despite the investigation being commenced by the Republican Justice Department, there was little Republican outrage to the well-documented findings of Russian interference in the election. Many Republicans agreed with then President Trump that the investigation was unjustified.

The John Durham Investigation.  In April 2019, U.S. Attorney General William Barr told members of Congress that he believed the Trump campaign was spied upon in 2016. In May, Barr appointed John Durham to oversee a DOJ probe on the origins of the FBI investigation into Russian interference. The probe was initiated despite the findings of the Justice Department inspector general, who determined that there was no political bias or improper motivations influencing the FBI investigation.

Three years later the most prominent prosecution initiated by Durham was of an attorney, Michael Sussmann. He was indicted for lying that he had been working for the Clinton campaign when providing evidence of Russian/Trump collusion to the FBI. It took a federal jury only six hours of deliberation to acquit him.

The Investigation of the January 6 Attack. The U.S. House Select Committee was convened to investigate the January 6 attack at the U.S. Capital. The Democratic proposal to form a bicameral, bipartisan commission failed due to a filibuster from Republicans in the Senate.  When it became apparent that Republicans would not cooperate, House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi appointed the select committee to investigate the events including two supportive Republicans. Despite exemplary efforts to piece together evidence of White House involvement in the attack, most Republicans continue to ignore it.

The Impeachments.  Impeachment proceedings are highly charged political affairs and are not officially Congressional investigations. Nonetheless, the Nixon impeachment was ultimately resolved on the facts presented by the Senate. This was in stark contrast to the Clinton and two Trump presidential impeachments, which were decided along strict partisan lines. Moreover, the constitutional mandate of “high crimes and misdemeanors” needed to convict for impeachment, left a great deal of wiggle room for Senators who wished to support the sitting president.

Each of these investigations (and impeachments) discloses a troubling pattern that has developed in recent years. Important issues that should have united all Americans, such as foreign election interference and domestic violence against certifying the presidential election, have done the opposite. Ill-advised investigations that should never have been commenced in the first place have spawned conspiracy theories that further divide the country. On the one hand, real threats against our constitutional republic have become divisive events causing further partisan conflict. On the other, Congressional political theater has replaced rational fact-finding.

Dark prophecies of a rancorous and gridlocked Congressional future seem warranted. Congress will lose more of its investigative responsibility and be relegated to conducting partisan witch-hunts based on shifts in Congressional power. The presidency will become more imperial. Only the courts will stand in the way of corruption and maleficence.

 

 

 

UNDERSTANDING INFLATION

Welcome to the discouraging world of high inflation. The headlines scream,

“Inflation hits 40 year high at 8.6%.” Food and fuel prices are the number

one concern of most Americans. Observers blame the Federal Reserve for

misreading the economic tealeaves. Fox News gleefully attacks the Biden

administration for causing an “economic catastrophe.” Even loyal

Democrats are asking what is going on and how do we fix it?

I am not an economist and have little background in the aptly called “dismal

science.” However, I have studied the subject enough to understand that

most of the accusations being hurled at policy makers and energy

producers are at best superficial and at worst pure nonsense. This

commentary will attempt to bring some common sense to our present

inflation crisis.

The economy is complicated. Rarely is a single factor responsible for an

economic outcome. All economists would agree that the overriding goal is

to avoid an overheated economy/inflation on the one hand and

recession/high unemployment on the other. Nevertheless, there are many

competing theories on how to keep the economy in the Goldilocks zone of

“not too hot – not too cold.”

Financial pundits are expert at using hindsight to assess an economic

crisis. Politicians have used unpredictable, unforeseen economic calamities

since the beginning of recorded history to unseat incumbents and gain

power. Such was the case for the Roman Empire with grain, the French

monarchy in 1789 with bread and now the Biden administration with oil.

There are four issues to consider in understanding our present high

inflation. The first is “core inflation” which excludes transitory or temporary

price fluctuations. Volatile commodities such as food items and energy are

excluded from core inflation. Annual core inflation rate in the US slowed for

a second month to 6% in May of 2022. It is the lowest reading in four

months. Because of high food and gas prices, no one talks about core

inflation, which is actually the more important long-term threat to a

balanced economy.

There is evidence that core inflation will continue to moderate. Housing

costs should come down as interest rates rise and lumber prices fall. New

and used vehicles should become less expensive as the shortage of chips

brought on by pandemic backlogs is reversed. Retailers like Target and

Walmart have recently announced anti-inflation fire sales to reduce

inventory surpluses in a variety of goods.

The second concern is gas/food prices, the focus of much of the boisterous

political debate. The irony is that most economists agree, of all the price

increases making up inflation, the two over which the Biden administration

has least control are gas and food. Of course, these items are also the two

items, which most concern angry voters heading into the midterm elections.

Larry Summers is an economist who has heavily criticized the Biden

administration and the Federal Reserve for waiting too long to tackle

inflation. However, when it comes to gas and food prices he believes that

these items have been influenced by geopolitical events not domestic

policy. On the Sunday talk shows, Mr. Summer announced his disbelief in

Republican hypocrisy for supporting the Ukraine conflict while blaming

Biden for high gas and food prices.

NATO imposed sanctions against Russia have taken between 3.5 and 4

million barrels of oil off the market, increasing the price of gas by $1.74 per

gallon. A perfect storm was created with low supply at a time when world

demand for oil increased following the pandemic. Regarding food

shortages, there is gridlock due to a Russian blockade of Black Sea ports.

Between 20 and 25 million tons of wheat are stuck in Ukraine while global

grain prices spiral upwards.

The third issue is “price gouging,” the go-to issue for Democrats as they

seek to push back against consumer anger at high gas prices. A bill backed

by House Democrats would give President Biden authority to declare an

energy emergency. The bill directs the Federal Trade Commission to

punish companies that engage in price gouging.

The bill has little chance of passing the Senate. It is pure political theater to

place blame on the oil companies because they made record profits over

the past six months. A detailed analysis by Barron’s (Why is Gas so

Expensive; June 10, 2022) shows that the profits of gas stations (now all

franchised) are actually down this year. Struggling customers are buying

less gas, coffee and snacks.

Refiners are the main reason that domestic supply of gas is low. Due to

decreased demand before and during the pandemic, the refining industry

contracted over the last decade shutting down 10 refineries. Now, supply is

low, and demand/profits are high, as one would expect.

The last issue is recession. With the Federal Reserve reversing its

quantitative easing policy and raising interest rates into a normal range, the

economy should slow down for at least several quarters. My guess is that

there will be a mild recession. The downturn should not be severe due to

our low unemployment rate, high level of consumer saving and low level of

consumer debt.

The takeaway from this commentary should be that economic cycles are

largely beyond the control of lawmakers. It is better to evaluate the

performance of elected officials on issues that they can control but often

choose to ignore. These would include important topics like preserving our

democracy, gun control, a women’s right to choose and voters’ rights.

THE YEAR OF ANGRY WOMEN

  

“Angry Women Will Change the World”: Empowered Women's Notebook

Over the past two years, voters have been bombarded with news of a deadly pandemic, loss of abortion rights, loss of voting rights, an insurrection at the capital, rising inflation, a war in Ukraine, and all too often, gun violence, including mass murder in our schools and other public places.  All of the above topics have been politicalized to the point where there is little agreement between Congressional elected officials (only 27% of which are women) on how to address each crisis. To exasperate the problem, when it comes to electioneering, it is expedient for the party out-of-power in Washington (Republicans) to take no action. Instead, it blames the party in power for the present conditions and for a lack of positive results.

With this onerous backdrop, the nation is facing an important midterm election this November that will determine whether President Biden and the Democrats are able to maintain a slim majority in Congress. Overall, in the post-World War II era, the president’s party has performed an average of 7.4 points worse in the House popular vote in midterm elections than it did two years prior in the national presidential election. If this holds true for Democrats, who now hold just four more than a majority, they would easily lose the House in November.

The Senate midterm elections pose their own problems for Democrats. However, the Senate contests are not as susceptible to the negative  electoral environment that affect the House. Nonetheless, which party will control the Senate after the November midterms is an open question.

Many political observers believe that the Democrats’ secret weapon in this year’s midterms are women voters who are angry at recent political events. According to Alan Lambert, a specialist on the shaping of political judgment, “when anger is focused on a particular set of perceived wrongdoings by a group or a person, this is the feeling that motivates people to vote.” Conversely, registered voters who are pleased with the status quo are more likely to ignore the midterm elections. In the 2018 midterms, women angry at the Trump administration’s policies and the then president’s behavior favored Democrats by 18%, insuring them a solid majority in the House.

Several recent anger-producing events have encouraged Democrats to believe there may be an opportunity to maintain control of Congress this November. First, a majority draft Supreme Court opinion authored by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, overturning Roe v. Wade, was clandestinely released to the media. The draft was a blunt, unpolished document that negatively impacted generations of pro-choice adherents. Immediate anger was directed against Republicans for the abrupt loss of access to abortion for tens of millions of women, with 62% believing it should be legal according to a recent poll.

The final abortion opinion will be released before the November midterms. There is a slim chance that the Supreme Court will abandon the draft opinion and adopt a more centrist approach. This result would not formally overturn Roe, but instead uphold Mississippi’s 15-week cut off for performing most abortions. Many women would oppose this more moderate outcome and remain committed against conservative candidates.

The second anger-inducing event has been the steady stream of mass shootings, including the recent murder of 19 young students in Texas. Gallup polls have indicated for years that women are more pro-gun control than men. Researchers found that 69% of women support stricter gun laws. This is no surprise when one considers that 33% of American men own guns compared with 12% of women. To emphasize gun control issues before the midterms, Democrats plan to introduce a series of bills, forcing Republicans to go on the record against each gun control measure.

Lastly, Democrats are hopeful that the prime time public hearings held by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection will influence women voters. Any new revelations that Trump and his followers attempted to subvert democracy may be an additional catalyst to anger enough women to make a difference in the midterms.

Republicans have their own reasons to view “angry women” as a political advantage in the upcoming midterms. They are attacking Democrats for “Biden-flation,” blaming his administration for the sharp spike in prices.  As a result, polls are showing dismal ratings among women for Biden’s economic policies.

Women make up 57% of workers who earn less than $25,000 annually. They also do a majority of the grocery and retail shopping.  The price of grocery items has risen above 10% since March of last year, with many staples such as eggs, flour, and milk up even more. The sudden and unexpected rise in inflation has affected them the most and has forced women to make difficult budgetary choices.    

Republicans are gleefully pointing to the baby formula shortage as another example of bad planning on the part of the president’s administration. Every new mother trying to feed her infant was given another reason to be angry with the party in power.

Of all the anger issues, the state of the economy is probably most important to women. Thankfully, for Democrats, economic issues have multiple causes and are problems that could fade or disappear prior to the midterms.

Whatever the outcome of this year’s important November elections, one factor is already a given. Angry women will have a major say in determining the winners.

 

 

 

 

“WE CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE”

 

The Canadian political scientist Joseph Carens has spent his professional career studying the concept of compromise. His research becomes particularly relevant at a time when political actors of every stripe have relegated the art of compromise to the dustbin and adopted the position that “we cannot afford to lose.” 

According to Mr. Carens, the problem with “compromise” is most evident from the definition offered in Webster’s Dictionary. The word is described as both: (1) “a settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions” and (2) “a concession to something derogatory, hazardous, or objectionable.”   For some in today’s divided world , compromise becomes a positive rational method of dispute resolution. For others it is a negative giving up of a core belief for an undesirable result.

What is an elected official or concerned citizen to do who wants to avoid the impregnable box of “we cannot afford to lose?” This commentary will discuss compromise in the context of Ukraine and abortion. For compromise to offer solutions there must be an acknowledgement that a negotiated peace in Ukraine will save lives or that a national abortion law could satisfy most of the country. Ukraine is difficult because the brutalities of war often cloud the path to peace. Abortion is challenging because Americans have divergent moral, religious and philosophical views. However, I will argue that in both cases the art of compromise should be adopted as a viable method for resolving these disputes.

Ukraine. Both the Ukrainian and Russian governments have made it clear that “they cannot afford to lose”. However, there are still pathways to peace short of complete victory on one side or the other. Moreover, a negotiated solution would not only avoid further death, destruction and worldwide economic hardship, it would provide a better prospect of avoiding future conflict.

Similar to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the compromise would involve Ukraine giving up land in the southeastern war zone in exchange for peace. Ukraine would receive security guarantees from NATO against further aggression and agree not to join the bloc. Russia would sign a non-aggression agreement, pay oil and gas reparations to help rebuild Ukraine and compensate displaced citizens in the land ceded to it. The United States and Europe would agree to a timetable for removing Russian sanctions dependent on progress of the other provisions.

The war in Ukraine is dissimilar from WWII where only an unconditional German and Japanese surrender was possible. Russia remains a major player on the world stage given its oil reserves and nuclear weapons. The longer the conflict continues the greater the risk of a broader conflict.

Lastly, even a chronic stalemate is not in America’s interest because of the billions a prolonged conflict would cost. A stalemate would also not permit Ukraine to return to a peacetime footing.

Abortion.  As aptly noted by the corporate leader Jamie Dimon, “You can compromise without violating your principles, but it is nearly impossible to compromise when you turn principles into ideology.”  This truism explains why abortion does not appear open to compromise. What for many years was a political talking point has become a full-pitched ideological battle following the apparent Supreme Court reversal of Roe v. Wade. Pro-choice and pro-life camps both believe “they cannot afford to lose.”

What is lost in the emotions of the moment is that an opportunity to reach a rational compromise is now worth exploring. The problem with Roe was that a judicial determination did not permit open democratic debate on a difficult subject where the science on the viability of life changed over time. The experience in other countries has suggested that divisive political issues, like abortion, are best solved by elected officials, not judges.

Enacted laws in 98% of all countries in the world now permit limited abortions. Performing abortion based on a woman's request is allowed in 34% of nations, including Canada, most European countries and Japan.  Polls validate that most Americans agree with a national legislative approach that would permit abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy with restrictions thereafter. This compromise avoids a patchwork of conflicting state abortion laws, following the repeal of Roe.

Ireland managed to find a compromise on abortion, despite its volatile history and large catholic population. A national law permits abortion during the first twelve weeks of pregnancy. It is also permitted in cases where the pregnant woman's life or health is at risk, or in the cases of a fatal fetal abnormality. To achieve this compromise a citizens’ assembly was created which issued recommendations to the government. Around the world, each nation considering abortion has reached a compromise solution based on the good will of its elected officials. In each case they cobbled together a fair resolution, acceptable to a majority of their citizens.

Rarely does “we cannot afford to lose” have a good ending. Finding the middle ground can provide both a lasting peace in Ukraine and heal a nation torn apart by the contentious issue of abortion. This discussion works equally well in resolving conflicts over gun control and voter’s rights. A vocal minority cannot be permitted to hold hostage the will of the majority on all of these issues.

As noted by Professor Carens, “we must stop expecting public officials and diplomats to make compromises on the one hand and, on the other, condemn them for doing that very thing.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

UPDATE ON VOTING IN AMERICA

 

With primary elections taking place across the country and the important midterm elections scheduled for November, now is an appropriate time to review the status of voting in America. Regrettably, the traditional positive message of urging citizens to exercise their democratic franchise is no longer the principal issue when it comes to voting.

On one hand, almost half of the electorate remains embroiled in challenging the results of the 2020 national election and in passing Republican-sponsored state legislation to limit voting rights. On the other hand, the remainder of the electorate seeks to move past the last election and to preserve the expansion of state voting rights that were adopted by many states during the pandemic.

The “stop the steal” movement has be unmasked by political observers as a forward-looking scheme to guarantee that Republicans are in a position to reverse a Democratic victory in the next presidential election. The new focus has become: to what extent should the voting process be politicized to permit the reversal of an unwanted election result by claiming voter fraud? This would be accomplished by giving partisan state elected officials, rather than nonpartisan civil servants, the power to control the voting process and to alter results.

For the average voter, the misinformation, unresolved court challenges and changing voting procedures make it impossible to stay on top of this year’s election. This is unfortunate because elections have consequences. The results of the midterms could determine the fate of voting in America. This commentary will summarize some of the more important voter related developments at the national, state and local levels.

National Issues. The Bren­nan Center’s seminal report, The Truth About Voter Fraud, conclus­ively demon­strated the most significant alleg­a­tions of voter fraud are base­less. Numer­ous post-election court rulings and studies, even one commis­sioned by the Trump admin­is­tra­tion, have reached the same conclu­sion.  Nonetheless, in all the “battleground” states that went for Trump in 2016 and for Biden in 2020, angry Trump supporters and Republican state legislators have continued to demand audits of 2020 election results and taken steps to diminish voting rights.

In Arizona, right-wing lawmakers pushed a bill that would have given the Republican-controlled Legislature the power to unilaterally reject the results of an election and force a new one. This was after the Republican Senate President issued subpoenas to Maricopa County to perform an audit. After six months, the audit, conducted by a rightwing conspiracy theorist, confirmed that Joe Biden won the state's largest county and found that former President Donald Trump received fewer votes than were originally counted.

In Wisconsin, the Republican legislature named a former Republican State Supreme Court Justice, Michael Gableman, as special counsel. He was given a staff and taxpayer-funded budget of $676,000 to audit the 2020 election. After publishing a report that found no fraud, Gableman nonetheless urged a panel of state lawmakers to consider illegally decertifying Wisconsin's 2020 U.S. presidential election.

In Georgia, the Republican state legislature passed a 98-page voting law that limited ballot access and gave more power to Republican lawmakers. Included among the provisions: voters have less time to request absentee ballots; strict new ID requirements were adopted; the bill gave the Republican legislature control over the state election board and the legislature is empowered to suspend local county election officials. In addition, it was made a crime to offer food or drink to a voter standing in line, and it is more difficult to extend voting hours.

Nationally, other battleground states and even those that traditionally vote Republican have adopted similar draconian voting laws. Moreover, Republicans who are in primary contests, across the country, embrace the “stop the steal” mantra in the hope that the former president will endorse them.

Pennsylvania Issues.  As a battleground state with a majority Republican legislature, Pennsylvania has been plagued by all the undemocratic maneuvers discussed above. While the Democratic governor has made it difficult to pass voter suppression laws, by exercising his veto powers, the legislature has threatened constitutional amendments to achieve the same result.

Recently, a Republican Commonwealth Court Judge declared expanded vote by mail invalid under the Pennsylvania Constitution. The PA Supreme Court issued a stay for the primary election.  A final opinion should decide the fate of vote by mail before the November election.

A critical senate and governor’s election are both on tap in 2020. Few of the Republican candidates campaign on policy issues important to conservatives. Instead, each contender backs the stop the steal movement, praises Trump and raises grievances on cultural issues.

Washington County Issues. Even though our county overwhelmingly voted Republican in 2020, the local election process has not been immune from claims of fraud. There has been an ongoing effort to audit the local election results, including the voting machines.

In March, rightwing election guru, Douglas Frank was invited to present his findings to the commissioners, who were not impressed by his data or his methods. Recently the local Washington contingent of “Audit the Vote PA” published county canvassing results which purported to show “phantom registrations” and other discrepancies. None of the conclusions were backed by source data or explanation.

In the final analysis, how we cast our ballots in 2020 will reflect either support or disdain for voter rights and the officials who administer elections. Each of us should become informed on these election related topics before making decisions that will have lasting consequences.