CHASING PHANTOM VOTER FRAUD IN WASHINGTON COUNTY

As I’ve been traveling the country visiting with election officials, I have become painfully aware that most of our officials have no idea what they are doing. Follow the Data with Dr. Frank

The “stop the steal” movement, which began after Joe Biden was elected president in November 2020, has been kept alive by former president Donald Trump and his minions. Partisan conspiracy theorists and their so-called experts continue to badger local election officials in battleground states as they attempt to overturn election results.

One would think that Washington County, which has become a solidly Republican voting district, would escape the attention of these efforts to perpetuate the “big-lie.” Why seek to uncover voter fraud to place Trump back in the White House in a voting district he won by double digits?  Defying all reason, Washington County is now at the center of the voter fraud storm.

This chain of events began last July when Monongahala resident Ashley Duff and her supporters presented an “election integrity report” to the county’s Election Review Committee at a raucous public meeting. The report was based, in part, on the voter fraud theories of “election expert”, Douglas Frank. The plan required a redundant review of votes cast and would have triggered expensive state law required replacement of the voting machines following the audit. To the relief of the commissioners and county taxpayers the committee voted down the proposal.

Unfortunately, members of the local “stop the steal” movement never take no for an answer despite procedures that have established fraud-free elections in Washington County. Since July, they have continued to be a hostile vocal presence at public commissioner meetings and insisted that further action be taken.

To appease this vocal segment of their party, the Republican Commissioners decided to schedule a private meeting on February 17 with the purported election guru, Douglas Frank. Following a 90-minute presentation the Washington County officials in attendance found Frank’s alleged facts to be too generic with no evidence that there was voter fraud in the recent local election. According to the Observer Reporter Frank was instructed “to return with specific data involving Washington County and the evidence backing it up.” Ashley Duff, who had sponsored Frank to appear, thanked county officials for holding the meeting.

Things went downhill fast after the Thursday meeting. Douglas Frank was inexplicably motivated to post outrageous remarks attacking county officials on his social media page titled, “Follow the Data with Dr. Frank.” His first post arrogantly demanded “formal legal investigations for illegal machines and illegal certification of their county election.” The second post had the audacity to call for “resignations as we expose county official’s illegal activities and unethical behavior as servants of the people. When we are done with them, their public reputations will be dashed to smithereens.”

In my 45 years of practicing law, I have never experienced an impartial expert witness cross the line to become the chief advocate for a highly politically charged position. His personal attacks on dedicated public servants who took the time to hear him out and who sought more information concerning his whacky theories is shocking. They destroy any credibility to his presentation and propositions.

Douglas Frank is the former chair of the math and science department at a Cincinnati High School.  He developed a voter fraud reputation through his YouTube channel that featured ongoing pro Trump analyses of the 2020 election. This was followed by interviews with wealthy Trump supporter, MyPillow, CEO Mike Lindell. Frank was hired by Lindell and Republican state officials to challenge election results in battleground states. In interviews, he has made it clear that his new gig is more profitable than teaching High School math. Lindell has already spent over 25 million dollars on his efforts to push election fraud claims, and Frank is one of his handful of “expert” beneficiaries.

Those who have attended Frank’s sales pitch equate it to an academic math lesson complete with charts and graphs. No matter where he is speaking, the conclusions are always the same. Frank claims that election fraud is wide spread and follows an identical formula to rig each local election. The voter registration database is inflated, false ballots are placed into the system, and corrupt efforts are made to clean up the fraud after the election is complete.

Frank’s theories have been debunked by multiple sources. An investigative team at the Washington Post found Frank’s claims to be nonsensical. His use of a mathematical algorithm called a “6^th-degree polynomial” is impressive sounding chicanery that does not prove fraud. A breakdown of the math shows nothing more than that voter turnout is consistent by age group. A report from the Michigan Senate Oversight Committee led by two Republicans, argued that Frank's claims were not "sound," saying they did not account for moving patterns or for same-day registration that would create natural disparities between Census data and voter registrations. Justin Grimmer, a Stanford University professor who has carefully followed Frank’s involvement in overturning the election looked at data from 42 states and concluded, “There is no basis for any of this.”

In Washington County, as in most jurisdictions, there are extensive election security protocols that would prevent the fantastical hacking and phantom vote stuffing that Frank has described. Trusting election results is at the core of our democracy. Informed citizens and elected officials need to stop giving credence to conspiracy theorists who push a predetermined result with ill-conceived data to back it up. Douglas Frank and his ilk are a danger to our republic and need to be rebuked.

 

 

THE PARADOXES OF FREE SPEECH

 

The clash of the “information age” and tribal politics has produced many interesting social dynamics. One of the most significant has been the effect of free speech in both democratic and authoritarian societies.  A timely, new historical treatise titled Free Speech: A History From Socrates To Social Media, (Basic Books, February 8, 2022) by Jacob Mchangama traces the history of free expression over the past 25 centuries. The study ends by focusing on the critical question, under what circumstances can unbridled speech be tolerated in our modern world. The answer to this question raises several paradoxes that are not easy to resolve.

The roots of free speech are ancient. The earliest examples of open debate and tolerance of social dissent were discussed by Pericles in 431 BC Athens.  Over the course of time, free speech would never have been considered a fundamental right but for the works of heretical trailblazers like Milton, Spinoza, the English Levellers, the French feminist, Olympe de Gouges and Frederick Douglas (among many others). The good news according to historian Jacob Mchangama is that today, “The principle of free speech has been transformed into an international human rights norm aided by advances in communications technology, unimaginable to the early modern mind.”

However, in today’s troubled political times Mchangama also believes we are witnessing “the dawn of a free-speech recession.”  I will consider this retrenchment of free speech through a series of paradoxes that capture the essence of where global thinking stands today.

Free Speech Is Only For Those Who Agree.  As an intellectual principle, most Americans support the concept of free speech. However, out in the political trenches this support collapses along ruthless identity and tribalistic lines. Constitutional free speech in America was intended to protect minorities against intolerance. Some of today’s progressive thinkers seek to undermine this ideal by working to purge from public discourse those views that are deemed racist, sexist or anti-LGBTQ.  Conversely, some conservatives have attacked the media, proposed illiberal laws that prohibit discussion of theories about race, gender and even history and have supported libel laws to punish unwanted free speech. Rather than a democratic staging area for rational engagement and debate, free speech has become weaponized.

Political Actors Use Free Speech To Gain Power and Then Seek To Suppress It.  Political actors seeking power are often the most egalitarian when it comes to free speech. They want to include as many like-minded voices as possible to amplify their positions against the elite in power. Paradoxically, as soon as those out of power assume leadership all bets are off. The egalitarian calls for a vocal opposition and free press are replaced by policies that suppress free speech. Among many examples, authoritarian regimes are adept at managing the internet so that only the “party line” is communicated to the public.

The Use of Militant Democracy to Suppress Free Speech. The phrase  “militant democracy” became the term for a modern position on free speech that developed in the United Kingdom and throughout the EU. The paradox of the policy is that democratic governments seek to deny basic free speech to those citizens who reject certain democratic values.  In recent years, militant democracy has been employed: to prohibit the manipulation of election information; ban right wing anti-immigrant and antidiscrimination organizations; arrest citizens for hateful posts on the internet; institute a ban on wearing veils; and to expand the laws against hate speech. The problem is that authoritarian regimes have quickly latched onto these bans and prohibitions in democratic Europe to justify their own draconian policies against free speech.

The Promise and Negative Effects of New Information Technologies. New inventions that spread information in unexpected ways have always started with the promise of advancing free speech before causing unintended disruptions. This was true of the printing press, which encouraged the illiterate to learn to read, which led to the reformation, which led to a century of violent repression and sectarian warfare. The proliferation of untrue but convincing political pamphlets helped stoke the French Revolution, which quickly turned from unfettered free speech to a repressive affair.

The World Wide Web was first heralded as positive free speech for the masses. This egalitarian goal has morphed into a discussion of how to promote safety and prevent harm by limiting internet based speech. We are in the early days of the digital age with further disruptions to free speech (beyond limitations on Facebook, Google and Twitter) yet to come. The paradox is that it is difficult to shield the masses from hateful content and disinformation without sacrificing the liberal values of free speech.

I will end with some encouraging words from Jacob Mchangama, who summarized portions of his important new book in an article in the March/April 2022 addition of Foreign Affairs Magazine, The War on Free Speech, Censorship’s Global Rise, as follows.

“The free-speech recession must be resisted by people around the world who have benefited from the revolutionary acts and sacrifices of the millions who came before them and fought for the cherished right to speak one’s mind. It is up to those who already enjoy that right to defend the tolerance of heretical ideas, limit the reach of disinformation, agree to disagree without resorting to harassment or hate, and treat free speech as a principle to be upheld universally rather than a prop to be selectively invoked for narrow, tribalistic point-scoring.”

 

 

 

 

 

NATIONAL ATTENTION FOR PA ELECTIONS

For those willing to get involved in political campaigns, there has never been a better opportunity to make a difference at the national level. The main event is the most closely watched Senate race in the country. Whichever party replaces Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey could well determine control of the Senate for the remainder of the Biden presidency.

The scramble by Republican candidates to replace Toomey has provided juicy, soap-opera drama in recent months. Early on, former President Trump endorsed Sean Parnell in the Senate primary. In late November 2021, Parnell suspended his campaign after a judge ruled against him in a custody battle. Credible testimony had included allegations that he physically and verbally abused his wife and children.

Smelling blood in the water, two wealthy sharks swam into Pennsylvania and announced their intent to run in the Senate Republican primary. First, television celebrity and former heart surgeon, Mehmet Oz, entered the fray with few political credentials and fewer ties to Pennsylvania. Dr. Oz apparently believes that, like Donald Trump, his smiling face and huckster demeanor will win the day.

Not to be outdone, former hedge fund manager David McCormick appeared on scene with an exploratory committee and vast amounts of media ad buys. He then made it official by entering the race to take on Oz. Like his opponent, McCormick has no political experience, few recent ties to Pennsylvania but deep pockets. He is portraying himself in commercials as a folksy farmer who can defeat the Democratic socialists and "woke" mob.

While these two Republican candidates continue to slice each other with vicious attack ads, the primary contest on the Democratic side is more sedate. The two "top-tier" primary candidates are Congressman Conor Lamb and Lt. Gov. John Fetterman. Both respect each other as elected officials. Their policy positions are similar, and the only question in the primary is who is more electable. Lamb's advantage is that he won a congressional seat in a pro-Trump district while Fetterman has won a statewide contest. The general election will be the most expensive Senate campaign in Pennsylvania history.

This year offers the rare occasion when a Pennsylvania Senate and governor's race appear on the same ballot. The stakes are high. If a Republican wins it will give the party control of both legislative chambers and the executive office. The sole Democratic candidate to replace Gov. Tom Wolf is Attorney General Josh Shapiro. In a surprise move Shapiro has already endorsed a Black state lawmaker from Allegheny County, Austin Davis, for lieutenant governor. This gives him geographic and racial diversity on his ticket.

In the Republican primary for governor, it is difficult to pick a frontrunner where there are at least five viable candidates. Recently, Senate President Pro Tempore Jake Corman may have separated himself from the pack by bringing Trump loyalist Kellyanne Conway on to his campaign staff.

In the background a host of other significant political issues are swirling around and building to a crescendo. Regarding district election boundaries, there has been a yearlong period of public hearings and political posturing. The result will determine the "once-a-decade" final composition of Pennsylvania's legislative and congressional district election maps. Non-partisan rationality and compromise have failed. The Republican Legislature and Democratic governor cannot reach an agreement compelling the appellate courts to again decide the final district maps. Due to candidate filing deadlines, if the courts do not act quickly, the May primary could be delayed.

Former President Trump's unprecedented challenge to his 2020 election loss (the big lie) has spilled over into a furious debate of whether Pennsylvania election laws should be changed to favor Trump positions in future elections. The same Republican elected officials who passed legislation to make it easier to vote before Trump became president have now reversed course and proposed procedures that would narrow voter participation.

If a Republican is elected governor, these ballot box limitations will easily pass. If a Democrat is elected, Republicans plan to introduce constitutional amendments to change election laws. These changes would include requiring "government-issued identification" to vote and require the state auditor general to review elections and voter rolls for accuracy, even when there are no improprieties.

Last week, Commonwealth Court, along party lines, upheld a Republican challenge to Pennsylvania's highly successful vote by mail procedures. Mail-in ballots helped President Joe Biden win the state by some 80,000 votes. The questionable ruling held that Article VII section 14 of our state constitution requires citizens to vote in person unless they have a specific excuse. Wolf immediately filed an appeal. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has a Democratic majority, will now decide whether there is access to mail-in ballots in future elections.

In order to stay current on all of these fast-moving developments, there is no better source than the nonpartisan Spotlight PA, a collaborative newsroom dedicated to producing investigative journalism. It regularly appears in newspapers throughout the state and features updates on political topics of interest in the commonwealth.

Gary Stout is a Washington attorney.

A DISTURBING REPUBLICAN VISION FOR AMERICA

  

The claim that the small Eastern European country of Hungary has become a Republican political utopia, to be replicated in America, seems ridiculous. How could a nation with a population of less than 10 million and a short history of European style parliamentary government have anything to offer the conservative right in the United States?

Yet, Donald Trump and his minions have often embraced Hungary’s elected Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, as a model to emulate. Recently, Tucker Carlson, the Fox News commentator, moved his show to Hungary for a week. He visited with Mr. Orban and gushed about his achievements. This year, the Conservative Political Action Conference, an influential annual gathering of conservatives in America, will be held in Budapest.

 Last summer, the conservative NYT columnist, Ross Douthat wrote, “Orban’s interventions in Hungarian cultural life, the attacks on liberal academic centers and the spending on conservative ideological projects are seen as examples of how political power might curb progressive influences.”  If the Republican Party finds in Orban an exemplary political figure, it makes sense to review his policies and political philosophy. Who is Viktor Orban, and what changes has he made in Hungary that have grabbed the attention of the American right? 

Hungary is a landlocked country in Central Europe.  It is bordered by Slovakia to the north, Ukraine to the northeast, Romania to the east and southeast, Serbia to the south, Croatia and Slovenia to the southwest and Austria to the west.  Viktor Orban first came on the political scene as a member of the center right, similar to Angela Merkel of Germany. By the time of his second stint as Prime Minister in 2010, he had morphed into something quite different. He boasted of becoming a proponent of an “illiberal” form of government. At the heart of his ideology was the principle that liberal multiculturalism must be defeated. For Orban, illiberalism means that Hungary is for the Hungarians. What follows is a summary of the policies adopted by Hungary since Orban has been Prime Minister.

Border Security The American right is enamored with the barbed-wire fences at the Hungarian border that appear clean and orderly with none of the chaos so common at the American Southern border. What is left unsaid is the Hungarian policy of denying food to families held in immigration detention centers. Viktor Orban’s anti-immigration propoganda has convinced many citizens that he is all that stands between them and a hostile Muslim invasion.

Elections While vote counts are not outwardly rigged in Hungary, elections are often one-sided affairs. Almost all of the campaign donations and advertising support Orban’s political party, Fidesz.  Bogus opposition parties are organized as a means of dividing the legitimate opposition vote. Observers have characterized the Hungarian Parliament as “a window decoration for a one party state.”

Hungarian Constitution Within months of taking power, Orban and his majority in the Parliament began rewriting the Constitution.  The country’s constitutional court was expanded in size, and Orban filled the new seats with loyalists. Another provision forced all judges over the age of 62 to retire so that these posts could be filled with friendly jurists.  As a result, The Prime Minister’s illiberal policies are guaranteed court approval.

New Legislation National laws were passed permitting Orban to fire civil servants en masse and replace them with partisan supporters.  Orban installed hand-picked department heads to run election supervision and the national media apparatus. These offices had been non-political under previous laws.

Independent Journalism and Media Orban’s government used the new constitutional provisions and legislation (through exorbitant taxing schemes) to silence independant media organizations. They were forced to sell to the state or to oligarchs aligned with the new illiberal system of government.  By 2017, 90 percent of all media was owned or indirectly controlled by Orban’s political party, including regional newspapers.

Reshaping of the Hungarian Electorate Because Orban’s opponents were denied state sponsored employment (and discriminated against in receiving government benefits) almost a million citizens, or one tenth of the population, left Hungary for Western Europe. Many lost their right to vote against Orban in Hungarian elections.

To boost the number of his supporters, Orban offered citizenship and voting rights to more than one million non-domestic Hungarians living in nations surrounding Hungary. These voters support Orban at a jaw-dropping 95 percent. Within Hungary, the Prime Minister has offered his supporters popular tax breaks, loans and access to medical clinics.

The Business Community Profitable Hungarian Corporations and successful small businesses report a troubling trend of mafia-style tactics to force them to sell out to Orban’s friends. If an offer from the state or an oligarch to purchase a successful company is refused, the organization is choked into submission by high taxes and smothering regulations.  Enriching Orban’s allies and neutralizing perceived threats guarantees a high degree of undemocratic social control.

Education The Orban government has reshaped the public school curriculum to remove opportunities for critical thinking that might encourage students to question the government’s policies. Liberal university centers have been denied funding and shut down.

I was going to end this commentary with the observation that Republicans should be careful what they wish for in praising Hungary’s political system. On second thought and most troubling of all, these policies may be exactly what many right wing Republicans are seeking as they follow Donald Trump down the rabbit hole into the next election cycle.

 

 

 

WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY DO WE WANT?

 

For the past several months, I have been paying close attention to conservative talking points from right wing media and from family members and neighbors who still have Trump signs in their front yards. I knew that my regular diet of progressive opinion pieces and cable television analysis was missing something. A recent article in Foreign Affairs (The Real Crisis of Global Order, by Alexander Cooley & Daniel Nexon, January/February 2022) helped me make sense of it all.

When reducing the raging arguments across America to their essence, one issue stands out. Each political party and its followers claim that the other side is taking steps to destroy democracy.  Each believes that it is the last bulwark to prevent the demise of our longstanding American constitutional Republic into an unrecognizable form of government.   

Democrats and Republicans have separately developed a model for America that precludes compromise. As explained in the Foreign Affairs article, “There remains the overwhelming crush of intense political polarization, hyperpartisan scorched-earth tactics, and legislative gridlock…After 30 years of dysfunction in the country, the political and foreign policy establishments have failed to reckon with this reality.”

The epiphany for me is that the political battle being waged is not about losing democracy. It is about choosing sides on an acceptable form of democracy with a distinct plan for America. The Republican vision is centered on saving white culture. Democrats want diversity with policies based on universal equality.

Not unlike today’s Republicans, many nations that hold regular elections have adopted illiberal democracies that are against immigration and in favor of a stronger executive branch. This approach often includes attacks against an open media and against legislative checks and balances. However, if a majority of voters continues to favor such a system, it remains a democracy in spite of its tilt toward nativism.

In today’s political climate, it is easy to forget that only 70 years ago our country was still fighting anti-democratic forces seen in domestic political movements, parties and politicians. Our 1950s federal government permitted the authoritarianism of racial segregation and bias against Jews and other minorities.  Women were discriminated against at work and had little protection from domestic violence. Adults were jailed for expressing their sexual preferences.  Democratic elections were a sham in Southern states. Yet, we labeled ourselves the leader of the democratic free world. 

Today, many Republicans are in favor of a more illiberal democracy that would counter what they view as the “replacement” of white political, social and cultural control with a takeover by black/brown and secular tendencies. A recent study revealed that almost all the Trump supporters who invaded the Capitol on January 6, were from communities that had experienced an uptick in minority populations over the past decade. Other polling has disclosed that in order to push back against this perceived loss of white influence almost half of the American electorate is willing to embrace limitations on voting rights and to permit partisan challenges to election results. More troubling, according to a new national survey by the nonprofit Public Religion Research Institute, almost one-third of Republicans say they think violence may be necessary to solve the problems facing the United States brought on by progressive policies,

Democrats insist that Republicans who support Trump are responsible for the impending collapse of democracy. They equate the political developments over the past year as a sure sign that Republicans intend to transform America into an authoritarian state.

Not to be outdone, Republicans also accuse Democrats of attempting to subvert democracy. The allegations include the fabrication of criminal charges against Trump so that he cannot seek reelection, doing away with the Electoral College, packing the Supreme Court with liberal justices, and changing the Filibuster procedural rules in the Senate.

A look behind the curtain reveals that democracy is a convenient foil and not the real issue. If saving democracy were at stake, the conflict would be between a powerful central state and a small political elite waging war against society as a whole. Our present conflict is between two equally matched segments of society each attempting to use democracy to impose its vision of America on the other.

Americans have been down this road before in choosing between two diametrically opposed views of their country. In 1858, the societal conflict between North and South lead to the Civil War.  In 1968, the conflict between baby boomers and their elders over the Vietnam War and civil rights appeared irreconcilable. The United States survived both.

The interesting question is whether America, with today’s stark divisions, can be governed at all. I find some encouragement in the words of Historian Richard Hofstadter, who wrote during the violence of the late 1960s as follows. “When one considers American history as a whole, it is hard to think of any very long period in which the country has been well governed. And yet its political system is a resilient and well-seasoned one that has shown the ability to summon enough talent and good will to cope with its afflictions.”

In whatever fashion the conflict is resolved, I do not believe that a society  based on Trumpism or one committed to socialism is in our immediate future.  The kind of country most of us can tolerate (together) lies somewhere in-between. I am confident our democratic constitutional republic will reach a messy moderate result, as it always has.

 

 

 

 

IN SEARCH OF EMPATHY

 

Finding empathy has been on my mind this holiday season. I often recall one of my favorite quotes from Atticus in To Kill a Mockingbird. “First of all, if you learn a simple trick, Scout, you’ll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view . . . until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.”  Numerous philosophers and famous people have attempted to define empathy. None has captured it better than Atticus has. As we close out a year of deadly pandemic, destructive weather and political insurrection that threatened the very heart of our democracy, no human emotion deserves more of our attention than empathy for one another.

Most of us spent the year wondering why we do not understand half the country or how they think. We grumble to our own tribe: “The other side is not rational; they never make sense.”  Rather than take Atticus’s advice on empathy, we have used the pandemic as an excuse to stay physically and emotionally distant. We cocoon in social media with our comfortable self-serving opinions. After all, it is much easier to stick with those who agree with us than to risk entering the cold, dangerous world and trying to understand the positions of others.

Perhaps the first step in seeking empathy is to gain some perspective. Before progressives vilify all Trump supporters and anti-vaxers, or conservatives attack those who brought Biden to the White House and criticize mask mandates, pick up the New York Times “Year in Pictures 2021.” Take time to view the photographic summary depicting the millions of humans who suffered unfathomable tragedies. After spending a moment contemplating each photograph, the disputes tearing us apart politically seem rather inconsequential by comparison.

Many of the photographs highlight the pandemic. As we close out 2021, over 800,000 Americans (500 in Washington County) and almost 6 million individuals around the world have perished from COVID. The loss felt by each family in their own unique cultural, ethnic and religious context is the same heart-breaking grief. The photographs record open crematoriums in India, stacked bodies in East Los Angeles and football-sized cemeteries in Brazil.  To feel empathy for each family who must carry on is what makes us human.

The photographs go on to chronicle the natural disasters that killed tens of thousands around the world and left many more homeless. In America, the weather events seemed endless. The forest fires in our drought-stricken West that get worse every year.  Rising sea levels causing the collapse of an upscale condominium in South Florida. A winter storm that overwhelmed the power grid in Texas. Hurricane Ida coming ashore as a category 4 storm in Louisiana.  Most recently, the destructive power of unpredictable tornadoes in Kentucky and neighboring states. 

We need each other to repair the damage and to move forward as a nation and as responsible members of the international community. Differing political views are healthy and are the foundation of a working democracy. However, such views cannot be permitted to stand in the way of compassion for those that are less fortunate or who have suffered loss.  We must never lose the ability to have empathy for and to seek understanding from those with whom we disagree.

Returning to the chronology of photographs, many are depictions of brave individuals attempting to gain democracy or enforce their civil rights. Russians rallying in support of the jailed opposition leader who challenged President Vladimir Putin.  Protestors seeking a return to democracy clashing with security forces in Myanmar and in Hong Kong.  Rebel soldiers closing in on the capital in Ethiopia. Veiled women teachers trying to keep schools open for girls in Kabul, Afghanistan. A portrayal of one of many Chinese re-education camps, where millions of Muslim Uighurs are interred and subjected to severe human rights abuses. An impromptu celebration on the streets of Minneapolis following the conviction of Derek Chauvin for the murder of George Floyd. 

We should all pause and permit these photographs that illustrate political violence and civil rights violations to be seared in our memories. Our democratic republic is not guaranteed. There are reasons that democracy flourishes in some nations but falls to authoritarianism and anarchy in others. Our system of government is hardly the natural order.  To make democracy work, we need empathy and understanding for all the political, social and cultural differences America has to offer.

Empathy is the opposite of anger and helps us reunite fractured communities. Empathy has the power to bring together people who would otherwise never meet to make our diversity a positive force. It has the ability to teach us, to heal us and to reach us in moments of isolation, when we think nobody understands, in times of illness and natural disaster.

In short, empathy is exactly what we need as we enter the new year and continue to face the perils of a pandemic, severe weather and political upheaval.
 

RECENTLY ELECTED REPUBLICANS ARE DAMAGING THE COUNTY

  

The transformation of Washington County from an overwhelmingly Democratic jurisdiction into one where a majority of the voters are registered Republicans has been a swift and total sea change. In the 2021 general election, 10,000 more Republicans cast ballots than in 2017. This gives Republicans a clear majority at the polls and ensures that Washington is as “red” a county as many of its rural neighbors to the east and north. The recent voting trend reverses a period of Democratic majorities and governmental control that predates the 1930s depression.

In the latest elections, Republicans have easily captured the majority on the Board of Commissioners, in addition to the offices of District Attorney, Sheriff and Controller. Beginning this January, all of the Row Offices (Prothonotary, Clerk of Courts, Register of Wills and Recorder of Deeds) will be held by elected Republicans. In recent state and national elections, Democratic candidates have not fared well in Washington County. The effort to elect a bipartisan Government Study Commission went down in flames because certain elected Republican officials fought vigorously against it.

It will take a well-trained team of political scientists to analyze the data and determine the reasons for this abrupt change in voting patterns. Westmoreland County is undergoing a similar transformation; so, we are not alone. It is not clear how many Democrats switched their party affiliation or how many are new voters. I suspect that the nativist appeal of Donald Trump has caused many chronic non-voters to take an interest in local government for the first time. Whatever the reason, elected Republican officials will be in charge of all non-judicial county functions as we begin this new year.

Since the Republican transformation began several years ago, it has become obvious that winning elections is a whole lot easier than governing Washington County.  Early on, rash decisions were made in the Row Offices to replace long-time knowledgeable employees with partisan Republican supporters who had no experience. Without a transition plan to train new employees in how to conduct critical clerical functions, many of the Row Offices made mistakes and could not keep up with their responsibilities, as defined by law.  The problem was exacerbated by the pandemic. This forced the courthouse to close and caused already challenged offices to be short staffed.

Unfortunately, rather than working with other county officials and with the courts to solve problems as they occurred, the newly elected row officers chose to say a lot, while knowing little. The rhetoric was and continues to be full-throated attacks against any elected Democrat still in office and against their nominal political leader, Republican Commissioner Diana Irey Vaughn, who helped get them elected.  Yearly audits designed to correct clerical and accounting deficiencies before they got worse were labeled “personal vendettas by Democrats.” Administrative court orders to cure deficiencies or to turn over records and files were publicly criticized and resisted.

Republican officials made up new rules on the fly in direct contradiction to their statutory authority or chose to ignore administrative orders issued by the President Judge. In short, long-established nonpartisan clerical functions, designed by law to ensure the orderly functioning of the county judicial system, became partisan political battlegrounds. In true Trumpian fashion, these officials attacked the messenger who pointed out deficiencies rather than dig in and resolve the problem for the betterment of the voters who placed them in office.

No one can recall the mundane Row Offices being front-page news until a Democratic Clerk of Courts stole funds from the office and his Republican replacement, (with little to do since several functions were removed from her jurisdiction), began spending her time seeking media attention.  She has filed more appeals from court orders and sued more individuals for a variety of offenses in a matter of weeks than the Clerk of Courts office has undertaken in decades. In the process of avoiding a contempt hearing scheduled against her for ignoring court directives, she has attempted to become the aggrieved and persecuted figure in the eyes of her many social media followers and the evening news. While it is all interesting theater, the embarrassment to the county and disruption to judicial processes has been vast and immeasurable.

The tragic figure in all of this has been Chairman Commissioner, Diana Irey Vaughn. She realizes that the opportunity for her party, now finally in control of county operations, is about accountable leadership and not partisan rhetoric.  Irey Vaughn was a minority Commissioner for many years and knows what good government looks like.  She has no interest in tearing down what works or in supporting witch-hunts into corruption that does not exist. Her responsible position has drawn the ire of the new breed of Republican leadership who want to replace her with one of their own.

The newly elected Republicans should be careful what they wish for. If they replace Irey Vaughn, all of their imagined dragons will be slain. There will be no one else to blame for damaging missteps as Washington County slips into mediocrity or worse. Without knowledgeable officials in key positions, the county’s municipal bond ratings will go down and surplus county funds will disappear. In addition, businesses will lose confidence, and taxes will increase. Living or working in Washington County will become undesirable.

The only good news for county residents is that in time, voting patterns will again begin to change.