“These people are no longer fringe”: Midterms likely to confirm MAGA’s staying power

Joe Walsh wants to make amends. Elected in 2010 to Illinois’s 8th Congressional District, Walsh was once one of the most prominent, combative voices from the far-right Tea Party wing of the Republican Party. And he was on TV constantly.

In 2012, he called President Obama “a tyrant” and Jesse Jackson “a race hustler.” He said Muslims were “trying to kill Americans every week” and that American Jews “aren’t as pro-Israel as they should be.” Even out of office, he tweeted jokes about the president’s birth certificate and repeatedly declared: “Obama is a Muslim. In his head & in his heart.” (He is not.) And days ahead of the 2016 presidential election, Walsh tweeted: “If Trump loses, I’m grabbing my musket.”

Walsh looks back with some regret about all that now, a dozen years after he, former Rep. Allen West (R-Florida) and other freshman insurgents were first elected to Congress during Obama’s first term. They were regular guests on CNN and Fox News, always good for an incendiary comment wherever there was a microphone, but accomplished little as legislators. They were also prototypes for a new generation of Republican agitators now in office: Reps. Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert, Madison Cawthorn and Marjorie Taylor Greene.

“I’ve got to live with that the rest of my life,” Walsh says now. “I was one of the angry Tea Party guys, and I really helped inflame the base. There’s a direct line from people like me riling the base up to Donald Trump in 2016, and then to the Marjorie Taylor Greenes of the world.”

They were outsiders then, on the fringes of a Grand Old Party that tolerated them at best, even if no Republican office-holder enjoyed more fire-breathing airtime than Walsh and West. While their many television appearances as Obama’s most ruthless critics fed their notoriety and excited the base, they also galvanized the opposition and alienated moderates who wanted less conflict in national politics, not more.

So just as quickly as they were swept into office, these proudly obnoxious members of the Tea Party wave were pushed out, one after another. In districts most vulnerable to switching parties, moderate voters grew tired of the noise. (Surviving Tea Party members, like Rep. Paul Gosar, were later absorbed into Trump’s “Make America Great Again” faction.) And while that earlier movement imploded over time, the most divisive House members of the Freedom Caucus don’t appear to be headed for the same fate during the midterm election on Nov. 8.

The only exception so far this election cycle is Cawthorn, defeated in his primary after party leadership and voters turned on the young congressman for his own misbehavior. Even that was a close election. What’s different now is that attitudes within the GOP have changed, says Walsh, who served under House Speaker John Boehner, a mainstream Republican often frustrated by members he later called “far-right kooks.”

In 2023, House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy will need their votes to become speaker, if Democrats lose the majority. And in districts where GOP partisanship has only hardened, the posturing and extreme rhetoric is welcome. The Freedom Caucus seats appear safe, and the gadflies only grow stronger. “They know they’ve got most Republican voters behind them, certainly in their district,” says Walsh. “So there’s no penalty for them to be as extremist, ignorant and cruel as they want to be. They’ll be rewarded.”

In the Tea Party era, they were outliers in the party. Now the GOP’s leading troll and gadfly is Trump himself, a twice-impeached former president and likely 2024 candidate. He’s led the personal attacks not only on Democrats but so-called “RINOs” (i.e., Republicans In Name Only). Ironically, Trump registered as a Democrat for nearly a decade, beginning in 2001.

“Trump really dismantled that norm in terms of the acceptability of politicians being able to say and do things that were considered just a faux pas, abnormal, unbelievable — lying, tearing down the system without solutions,” says Chris Haynes, an associate professor of political science at the University of New Haven (Connecticut), who has studied the collision of social media and the presidency. “Trump made it OK to literally tear down the system and not care about what the solutions were going to be.”

By contrast, Haynes adds, the tea party movement lacked “an identifiable, charismatic and salient leader.”

In addition, Walsh’s time in office came before the pervasive use of social media in campaigns. For Trump and the Freedom Caucus, Twitter became a weapon. “It’s all about advancing and growing their own brand,” Walsh says. “We were just in the infancy of that with my class with Allen West.”

In 2012, Walsh lost his reelection bid to Democrat Tammy Duckworth, a disabled veteran of the Iraq War and now a U.S. senator. Rep. West also lost, in spite of a campaign fund of $17 million and the loud support of conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh. West’s pollster had the congressman ahead by a comfortable five points, but the race ended with a recount favoring Democrat and first-time candidate Patrick Murphy, then 29.

West was one of the most divisive voices in Congress, and his failure to appeal beyond the GOP grassroots and tone down his rhetoric proved fatal. Redistricting was also a factor, putting more Democratic voters into West’s district, so he chose to run instead in a neighboring district. Tellingly, his GOP primary opponent, a local sheriff, endorsed the Democrat.

West is very much on board with the current MAGA tilt of the party but hasn’t got much traction in returning to elective office. This year, he challenged Texas Gov. Greg Abbott in the Republican primary and lost.

“Allen West became a Trumper,” says Walsh. “Jim Jordan and I were best friends. He became a Trumper. A lot of the hardcore conservatives who I served with in philosophy and principle, they couldn’t stand Trump, but they all did what they had to do and they sold their souls to stay in power.”

Not all Republicans are on board with the most media-savvy members of the Freedom Caucus, though only a minority of office-holders are openly critical. Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), himself a conservative Trump supporter, dismissed all members of the Freedom Caucus as “grifters” and “performance artists” while speaking at a candidate event in Houston. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), writing in The Atlantic, condemned the “carefully constructed, prejudice-confirming arguments from the usual gang of sophists, grifters, and truth-deniers” around him.

In 2020, Walsh launched a doomed, quixotic race against Trump in the Republican primary for president, one of three long-shot never-Trumpers running. He left the contest after his overwhelming defeat in the Iowa caucuses.

Meanwhile, the noisiest, most-televised Republican House members have only grown in influence, as they lead a growing extremist crowd of election deniers and QAnon believers. The partisan attacks are becoming crazier and nastier. Greene has blamed California wildfires on a “Jewish space laser,” and in February she spoke at a conference of white nationalists hosted by far-right extremist Nick Fuentes in Orlando, Florida. Now Greene is being talked up as a potential Trump running mate in 2024.

“Marjorie Taylor Greene is not fringe,” says Walsh. “These people are no longer fringe. They’re the party.”

* * *

In North Carolina’s 11th Congressional District, Rep. Cawthorn was a MAGA hero, and one of Trump’s most devoted supporters in Congress. He made a speech at the president’s Stop the Steal rally on Jan. 6, where he declared: “When I look out into this crowd, I can confidently say this crowd has the voice of lions.”

But his support even within the House Freedom Caucus nosedived after making several bizarre comments. In a podcast interview, Cawthorn suggested the bad behavior depicted in the Netflix series House of Cards was more reality than fiction, and said he’d been invited to orgies by other House members in their 60s and 70s, and witnessed others use cocaine.

On the eve of the primary, Trump sent out a letter of support for his 26-year-old disciple: “Recently, he made some foolish mistakes, which I don’t believe he’ll make again … let’s give Madison a second chance!” But the damage was done.

Cawthorn was the first prominent Freedom Caucus member to fall in 2022, though he still came within a few thousand votes of winning. “It didn’t seem like there’s any limit, but he found it,” says Seth Masket, a professor of political science and director of the Center on American Politics at the University of Denver. “He just went a little too far, and they had no interest in defending him.”

On the eve of the Jan. 6 insurrection, Rep. Boebert tweeted, “Today is 1776,” and this year she heckled President Biden during his State of the Union address. In her first term in office, she’s been among the loudest freshman Republicans, if also the most incoherent. “I’m tired of this separation of church and state junk – that’s not in the Constitution,” Boebert said ahead of her June primary. (The first clause of the Bill of Rights, of course, says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”)

Her attention-getting cafe, Shooters Grill in Rifle, Colorado, where waitresses were armed as they served diners — as well as her campaign office next door — lost their lease in July. When the cafe closed, a sign was left out front with a MAGA-friendly message: “Thanks for the support … #covfefe.”

Her Democratic challenger for Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District is Adam Frisch, a former Aspen City Council member running as a moderate, criticizing Boebert’s central activity in Congress as meaningless “angertainment.” His attacks on the incumbent are less about policy than style.

“He’s mostly running on the idea that she doesn’t take this job seriously — that she is just there to throw bombs and be a blowhard and isn’t really interested in governing,” says Masket. He notes that Frisch is trying to appeal to any “Republicans in his district that don’t really like her because of that. That’s probably the smart way to run this race.”

Notably, her unsuccessful Republican primary opponent, state Sen. Don Coram, has endorsed Frisch. The challenger has also been slightly ahead of Boebert in fundraising.

While Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight poll analysis site predicts an easy victory for Boebert, one recent poll from Keating Research showed her only two points ahead of her opponent. That might put the Democrat within striking distance of an upset if an uncertain bump in Democratic support occurs because of continued voter alarm over threats to abortion rights and the Supreme Court striking down of Roe v. Wade.

“I think it’s wishful thinking, to be quite honest,” says Haynes, who adds that extreme manipulation of the redistricting process has only increased the GOP advantage in certain states. In Boebert’s redrawn district, Republicans now outnumber Democrats 150,000 to 115,000, though unaffiliated voters make up the largest bloc with 44% of the electorate.

Frisch is “presenting himself as a fairly conservative Democrat,” adds Masket. “He’s someone that, under more normal conditions, a Republican would probably be comfortable voting for.”

* * *

When Greene first ran for her House seat from Georgia’s 14th District in 2020, she was kept at arm’s length by GOP leaders in Washington, D.C. After videos were discovered online showing Greene making comments that were racist, antisemitic and Islamophobic, congressional Republicans spoke against her during the primary. “The comments made by Ms. Greene are disgusting and don’t reflect the values of equality and decency that make our country great,” Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), a former Tea Partier, told the Washington Post. Greene still won her primary runoff. Then her Democratic opponent dropped out, and she easily glided into office.

Now she’s a MAGA star, with major feature articles in the New York Times and elsewhere, and all predictions are that she will sail to reelection.

This time the Democrat is Marcus Flowers, an Army veteran and former government contractor who spent most of his life as a committed nonpartisan. He last ran for office when he was in the 10th grade, vying for class president. (He won.) But his position changed during the unrest of the Trump years, and the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police.

After the attack on the Capitol, he decided to run for Congress against Greene. “Marjorie Taylor Greene is dangerous and a threat to democracy itself,” says Flowers. “I see 2022 as being a dry run for an authoritarian takeover in 2024, if we don’t do the work.”

Among other issues, Flowers says Greene fails the district repeatedly, with little in the way of providing constituent services or bringing federal money to its 11 counties in northwest Georgia. “She’s always out of the district traveling around campaigning and doing media hits, doing her video podcasts, or out with Matt Gaetz,” Flowers says.

As a measure of the desire of Democrats across the U.S. to eject Greene from her seat, the race is one of the year’s most expensive, with $15 million coming into his campaign from individual donors around the country. While critics on the Democratic side have warned that throwing money at longshot candidacies is a mistake when closer races need the funds, Flowers argues that he’s building a foundation to last beyond his own race.

“Historically, it’s been a district that hasn’t gotten a whole lot of focus from Democrats,” he says. “I’m a soldier, and we were taught to run towards the sound of gunfire — you cede no ground. Let’s be honest about it: Everything that this campaign is doing here in northwest Georgia, by setting up the infrastructure and making that investment in the district, is helping Democrats up and down the ballot.”

Flowers remains an extreme longshot. On Oct. 4, a Washington Post reader posted this comment on the paper’s website: “As a Georgian who resides in MTG’s district, I can tell you that Satan could run for office in many parts of this state and be elected. The devotion to hatred of Democrats is the only political motivation of many here.”

* * *

After leaving office, Walsh became a conservative talk radio host. He lost his most recent terrestrial on-air gig for his outspoken criticism of Trump and the modern Republican Party. He now hosts a podcast called “White Flag.” On his Facebook page, he frequently fields ugly comments from listeners and fans, former constituents and MAGA faithful.

“In a sense they think I’m a traitor because I was part of their family and I left the family. So it’s very personal,” Walsh says of the interactions.

“Even more disappointing, all of these voters of mine, the Tea Party folks out there in America, they all abandoned everything they believed in to support Trump. It’s just been crushing.”

Whatever the hell happens in this election, let’s commit to facing the truth

Before I write another piece for Salon about the Age of Trump and the generally dark state of politics and the world, I tend to ask myself: Is this something the American people want to hear, or something they need to hear?

As final votes are cast in what may be the most important midterm elections in American history, with the future of democracy effectively on the ballot, this question becomes even more important.

I prefer the second option. For a variety of reasons, personal or professional or purely mercenary, many commentators and other public voices choose the first option. In the aggregate, that has done a great disservice to the American people and the country.

In this political climate we especially cannot afford the herd mentality of consensus thinking. America’s new reality of neofascism, the Big Lie and the demise of normal politics means that the old assumptions and rules no longer apply. As a result, the “mainstream” viewpoint and conventional wisdom do not have the predictive power and truth-value they once did — if indeed they ever did.

Sounding the alarm and consistently seeking to shine light into the dark places can make many people uncomfortable, especially if those people are invested in America’s national mythologies of inherent goodness and righteousness, if they share a vision of America as a shining city on the hill, a unique and exceptional nation. If you are among the voices who warn of trouble ahead, you can fall victim to the “kill the messenger” complex, becoming identified with the feelings of anxiety and dread caused by the very problems you are trying to warn others about.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Such a dynamic of misdirected anxiety is a clear danger for any person of color who is committed to telling the truth about racism and white supremacy and their central role in American history and society.

In a recent Twitter post, Elie Mystal of the Nation explained this perfectly: “Telling the truth about white people to white people can exact a terrible price on one’s career and opportunities. And our civil rights leaders know especially that far too often that cost is exacted in blood.”

Telling the American people what they need to hear, rather than what they want to hear, results in divergent and often radically opposed narratives about politics and current events.

In this political climate, we cannot afford the herd mentality of consensus thinking. The old assumptions and rules about politics no longer apply, if they ever did.

For example, consider the reassuring narrative that Trumpism is a deviation from “normal” politics, to which we will return someday soon. According to this narrative, most Republican elected officials, candidates and voters are fundamentally honest and decent people, who are not MAGA cultists. Thanks to the innate goodness of America and Americans, a correction will inevitably occur.

A closely allied narrative: Who could possibly have imagined how bad Donald Trump would be as president? It was impossible to predict that an American president could be a shameless demagogue, and entirely reasonable to assume he would “grow” into the job and “pivot” toward “presidential” behavior.

Is America ready to trade democracy for cheap gas? That’s fascism in a nutshell

Regular readers will have noted my complaints about the all-too-common narrative that the House Jan. 6 committee hearings were full of shocking, startling or incomprehensible revelations. Or the media’s amazement that Trump turns out to be an ignorant, mendacious and contemptible person. Surely his followers will get tired of this charade and turn away.

Consider the reassuring narrative that Trumpism is a deviation from “normal” politics, to which, thanks to the innate goodness of America and Americans, we will soon return.

Relatedly, we have been treated to many assurances that of course Trump will be prosecuted and convicted and likely sent to prison. That, after all, is the American way: No one is above the law! As for the threat of widening right-wing political violence or a sustained insurrection, that is a dreadful but temporary result of “polarization.” That too shall pass because such things are unsustainable here in America, where we are united by shared values of “democracy” and “patriotism.”

It is almost painful to note how often we were told that Roe v. Wade was settled law, and it was a wildly improbable fantasy to believe that the Supreme Court would take away women’s reproductive rights after nearly 50 years. And of course, after that happened we were told that the Dobbs decision would save the Democratic majority in the House and be the virtual death knell of Trumpism and the Republican fascist movement. (To be fair, while that seems unlikely we still await a verdict as I write this.)

Observers have also protested that Republican candidates in 2022 are ridiculous. Who would ever vote for the likes of Herschel Walker or Dr. Oz or J.D. Vance or Doug Mastriano? The American people will make wise decisions in the end. No “red wave” is in fact coming; instead we will see a rising blue tide of women, younger voters, people of color and political independents who will join together to stop the Republicans and save the country.

Again, while that prognosis is overly optimistic it may contain a germ of truth. As we arrive at Election Day, the generic ballot shows a virtual tie between Republicans and Democrats. Turnout, as usual, is the big question. We may see a mixed verdict that does not become clear for several days.

But here is the less “good news” story about American democracy in this time of crisis. The Age of Trump and the larger neofascist movement should not have surprised anyone. It was planned in public for decades. The Republican fascists, “conservatives” and larger white right are doing exactly what they said they would do.

There is a deep well of authoritarianism, racism and anti-democratic values in America. “Trumpism” was not conjured from nothing through Trump’s peculiar personal charisma. He and his acolytes just gave tens of millions of white Americans (and a not-inconsiderable number of others) permission to release their hatred, venom and resentment

There is a deep well of authoritarianism, racism and anti-democratic or illiberal values in America. “Trumpism” was not conjured out of nothing through Donald Trump’s peculiar personal charisma.

Opinion polls and other research show that the popularity of Trump and his Big Lie candidates has not wavered much or been significantly blunted leading into the midterms. Moreover, Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election — and its necessary corollary, that the Jan. 6 coup attempt and Capitol attack were “legitimate” — is now accepted gospel by most Republicans and Trump voters.

Big Lie and “election denial” candidates are either leading or very close in many key races across the country. Neither the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision nor the FBI investigation of Trump’s apparent theft of classified national-security documents appear to have dramatically transformed the midterm elections in the Democrats’ favor.

We do not know how the midterms will conclude. But it appears that many among the Democratic Party’s core voters, such as African Americans, Latinos and younger people, report lower levels of enthusiasm for the midterms than in previous elections. Likely Republican voters, express more enthusiasm this year. President Biden’s approval numbers continue to be anemic, which is almost invariably a bad sign for the president’s party in a midterm election.

Polls have consistently shown that the American people are more concerned about gas prices and “the economy” than about “democracy,” which many see as a meaningless abstraction. A large majority of Americans believe that the country is heading in the wrong direction, another ominous signal for the incumbent party.

Furthermore, Republicans have a coordinated campaign — again, in no sense a secret — to use the courts, threats of violence and intimidation, disinformation and various other tactics to sabotage the midterm elections on the local level, as necessary to ensure victory. Their longstanding voter-suppression campaign against Black and brown Americans in particular, driven by gerrymandering and a host of new laws aimed at making voting more difficult, is a major part of that strategy.

Republicans have in fact concluded that they do not need to win control of the House or Senate in order to corrupt or sabotage American democracy. Key governorships, secretary of state and attorney general offices and majority control of state legislatures are fundamentally more important, a lesson Democrats have yet to learn.

Down-ballot losses could be coming for Democrats — but there’s room for hope

How can these conflicting narratives about America’s present and future be reconciled, if at all? Where do we go from here, after whatever we learn from these midterm elections? Any answers to those questions must be grounded in an uncompromising commitment to pro-democracy journalism and truth-telling, however uncomfortable that may be for the American people and their leaders and other elites.

Legendary former CBS News anchor Dan Rather recently offered his hard-earned wisdom about what America’s democracy crisis demands of journalists. He began by endorsing the traditional view that journalists must act as “arbiters of truth, while recognizing we can only aspire to get as close to the truth as is humanly possible,” but then observed how that convention can become a trap:

Take a long-held truth in newsrooms that journalists should cover political stories from a position of equivalence between the two major parties. But what if the truth of our current time strikes at the very bedrock notion of apolitical fairness?

With the rise of Donald Trump, I came to the conclusion early that this man could pose a danger to the fundamental nature of the United States as a constitutional republic based on the principles of democracy. I desperately hoped that I was wrong, but I saw a man who stoked division, scapegoated, lied with reckless impunity, and had no regard for the norms by which our nation has functioned.

Over the course of his run for the presidency, his time in office, and the wake of his defeat in the 2020 election, everything we have learned and witnessed further and more completely confirms his unfitness for office. It has only escalated the danger he poses to the safety and security of the nation.

We have also seen that the pestilence he embodies is not limited to him. It has spread throughout the Republican Party, as evidenced by the number of people in office and running for office who have embraced his bile, his lies, and his authoritarian instincts.

This isn’t a matter of conjecture. These are the stated, public positions of the former president, his enablers, and those who pay fealty to him — which at this point represents the majority of Republican officeholders.

Rather concludes by arguing that after a life in journalism, he can see no “bigger story than the current threat to American democracy,” which “weaves together so many of the threads of our national tapestry”:

It is about power and race and the rule of law and economic opportunity and the very notion of what freedom should be.

To my fellow journalists, I know this is difficult. We are in uncharted waters. The old rules for covering politics no longer apply. In the end, false equivalence is just another way of obscuring the truth from your readers and viewers.

The truth is what it is. It is damning. It is dangerous. And it is the direct result of those who are undermining our democracy.

Some months ago, I read an online comment posted in response to a news commentary at a prominent publication. It continues to resonate with me. “I wish these reporters and writers at this site would just make up their damn minds,” the commenter wrote. “One person says it is a disaster another one it’s going to be fine and Trump is done. I am tired and exhausted and confused and am about to not care anymore. Will they just make up their damn minds!”

That is a raw and uncomfortable truth, and also a call to action.

With Tuesday’s historic midterm elections — which may well not be decided until Wednesday or Thursday or an unknown future date — America is literally an undiscovered country. The future of our democracy and society is literally being decided right now.

But whatever the outcome, those of us with a public platform who will believe in democracy and the American project should commit ourselves to speaking with greater clarity, to be unafraid in speaking truth to power and not to shy away from saying uncomfortable but necessary things.

As Danielle McLean writes in the foreword to Project Censored’s “State of the Free Press 2022“:

Sadly, too many of the media’s scarce resources are devoted to amplifying the voices of the country’s most powerful government officials and corporate executives, uncritically publicizing their opinions and short-term goals instead of exploring the collective impacts that their decisions might have on society and its most vulnerable members. This needs to change. Our industry needs to change.

We need to stop chasing ratings and meaningless clickbait headlines, stop treating politics like celebrity gossip and elections like popularity polls, demand change from the corporate boards and hedge funds that run news outlets without caring about the free press, and turn our focus toward the kind of journalism that our society deserves.

That sounds, and is, difficult. It may be overly idealistic. But America’s future hangs in the balance. This profession demands a new prime directive: an unswerving commitment to truth-telling, rather than cheerleading, sportscasting or seeking to win a popularity contest. That will be the only possible path forward for American journalism, and American democracy.

about the turning point of 2022

How Tennessee disenfranchised 21% of its Black citizens

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

Leola Scott recently decided to become a more active citizen. The 55-year-old resident of Dyersburg, Tennessee, was driven to action after her son was stabbed to death and nobody was charged.

In August, Scott tried to register to vote. That’s when she learned she’s not allowed to cast a ballot because she was convicted of nonviolent felonies nearly 20 years ago.

One in five Black Tennesseans are like Scott: barred from voting because of a prior felony conviction. Indeed, Tennessee appears to disenfranchise a far higher proportion of its Black residents — 21% — than any other state.

The figure comes from a new analysis by the nonprofit advocacy group The Sentencing Project, which found that Mississippi ranks a distant second, just under 16% of its Black voting-eligible population. Tennessee also has the highest rate of disenfranchisement among its Latino community — just over 8%.

While states around the country have moved toward giving people convicted of felonies a chance to vote again, Tennessee has gone in the other direction. Over the past two decades, the state has made it more difficult for residents to get their right to vote back. In particular, lawmakers have added requirements that residents first pay any court costs and restitution and that they be current on child support.

Tennessee is now the only state in the country that requires those convicted of felonies be up to date on child support payments before they can vote again.

The state makes little data available about who has lost the right to vote and why. Residents who may qualify to vote again first have to navigate a confusing, opaque bureaucracy.

Scott says she paid off her court costs years ago. But when she brought a voting rights restoration form to the county clerk to affirm that she had paid, the clerk told her she still had an outstanding balance of $2,390.

“It was like the air was knocked out of me,” she said. “I did everything that I was supposed to do. When I got in trouble, I owned it. I paid my debt to society. I took pride in paying off all that.”

Scott does not have receipts to verify her payments because she made them so long ago, she said. And there is no pathway for her to fight what she believes is a clerical error.

She is now a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by the Tennessee NAACP challenging the state’s voting rights restoration process. In court documents, the state denied allegations that the restoration process is inaccessible.

Overall, according to The Sentencing Project, about 470,000 residents of Tennessee are barred from voting. Roughly 80% have already completed their sentence but are disenfranchised because they have a permanently disqualifying conviction — such as murder or rape — or because they owe court costs or child support or have gotten lost in the system trying to get their vote back.

Over the past two years, about 2,000 Tennesseans have successfully appealed to have their voting rights restored.

Those convicted after 1981 must get a Certification of Restoration of Voting Rights form signed by a probation or parole officer or another incarcerating authority for each conviction. The form then goes to a court clerk, who certifies that the person owes no court costs. Then it is returned to the local election commission, which then sends it to the State Election Commission for final approval. (Rules on voting restoration were revised multiple times, so older convictions are subject to different rules.)

Republican Cameron Sexton, speaker of the Tennessee House of Representatives, said people convicted of felonies should have to pay court costs and child support before voting.

“If someone’s not paying or behind on their child support payment, that’s an issue,” he told ProPublica. “That’s an issue for that child, that’s an issue for that family, not having the things that they agreed to in court to help them for that child.”

When asked about Tennessee being the only state to require that child support payments be up to date before voting rights can be restored, Sexton said, “Maybe Tennessee is doing it correctly and the others are not.”

A 2019 report from the Tennessee Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found that the requirements for repayment have been especially burdensome to women, the poor and communities of color. The report also noted that Tennessee has increasingly levied court charges “as a means for funding the State’s courts and criminal justice system.”

Georgia previously required payment of restitution and fines in order to restore voting rights. But in 2020, the office of Georgia’s secretary of state clarified that anyone who has completed their sentence may vote, even if they owe court costs or other debts that were not incurred as part of their sentence.

Disenfranchisement does not solely impact the lives of individual voters — it can have consequences for elections, too. This is particularly true for multiracial communities in Tennessee, according to Sekou Franklin, a political science professor at Middle Tennessee State University. He pointed to county-level races that have been decided by a few dozen votes.

“There are real votes that are lost that can shape elections,” Franklin said.

Black Tennesseans, even those who were not enslaved, have been disenfranchised for centuries. In 1835, the new state constitution took away the right to vote from free Black men, who had been able to vote under the previous constitution. It also stipulated that anyone convicted of an “infamous” crime — a list that included robbery, bigamy and horse stealing — would lose their voting rights, often permanently.

The civil rights laws of the 1960s opened up voting again for Tennesseans. But soon lawmakers began adding back in provisions that disenfranchised people convicted of felonies. Legislators updated the statute every few years, adding to the list of crimes that permanently disqualify someone from voting. The result is a convoluted list of eligibility criteria for voting rights restoration that depend on what a person was convicted of and when the conviction took place.

The reality of disenfranchisement in Tennessee received some national attention recently around the case of a Memphis woman, Pamela Moses. Three years ago, she got her probation officer’s signoff to vote again. The next day, the Tennessee Department of Correction asserted the officer had made an error. Prosecutors then charged Moses with lying on an election document. She was convicted and sentenced to six years in prison, but a judge later threw out the conviction.

Tennessee lawmakers from both parties have tried, unsuccessfully, to make it easier for residents to get their vote back.

In 2019, two Republican lawmakers sponsored a bill that would have automatically restored voting rights to people upon completion of their sentence. It was supported by a bipartisan coalition of civil rights advocates, including the libertarian group Americans for Prosperity and the Tennessee American Civil Liberties Union. But it never gained traction among legislators.

In 2021, two Democrats sponsored another bill that would have granted automatic vote restoration, but that bill also died. The sponsors said that the Republican supermajority in Tennessee’s legislature simply doesn’t have an appetite to take it on.

“We said we wanted to do criminal justice reform, but all we’ve done is really nibbled around the edges,” state Sen. Brenda Gilmore told ProPublica, referring to a bill she co-sponsored with a fellow Democrat.

Dawn Harrington, the founder of Free Hearts, an organization that supports formerly incarcerated women, also advocated for the 2021 bill.

On a trip to New York City in 2008, Harrington carried a gun that was licensed in Tennessee. Because New York does not recognize permits from other states, she was convicted of a gun possession charge.

After serving a yearlong sentence on Rikers Island, she returned to Tennessee and set out to have her rights restored. Tennessee requires the incarcerating agency to sign the rights restoration form, but Harrington struggled to find someone in New York willing to sign it. After nine years, her rights were finally restored in 2020.

“I don’t know if you know the show ‘The Wiz,’ but I literally eased on down the road,” Harrington said about having her voting rights restored. “I danced. I was so happy I cried. I was feeling all the emotions. You never know how much something means to you until it’s taken away.”

Ron DeSantis tries to block DOJ election monitors that enforce voting rights

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is trying to block monitors from the Department of Justice from gaining access to some polling places.

The department announced Monday it would send federal monitors to 64 jurisdictions — including Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties — across the country to ensure civil rights laws were upheld, but the Florida Department of State sent a letter later that same day warning those monitors would not be allowed inside polling places and the state would instead send its own, reported the Washington Post.

“Florida statutes list the people who ‘may enter any polling room or polling place,'” wrote Brad McVay, chief counsel for Florida’s Department of State. “Department of Justice personnel are not included on the list.”

The statute lists an exemption allowing law enforcement to enter polling places, but McVay argued that Justice Department monitors did not qualify.

“Absent some evidence concerning the need for federal intrusion, or some federal statute that preempts Florida law, the presence of federal law enforcement inside polling places would be counterproductive and could potentially undermine confidence in the election,” McVay wrote. “None of the counties are currently subject to any election-related federal consent decrees. None of the counties have been accused of violating the rights of language or racial minorities or of the elderly or disabled.”

Florida secretary of state Cord Byrd, a DeSantis appointee, said the DOJ request deviated from past years, including 2020 under President Donald Trump, but he said those monitors remained outside polling sites.

“This is not to be confrontational in any way,” Byrd said. “They sent a letter to the counties asking for permission to be in the polling places. We told them that under state law, that is not permitted, and we asked them to respect state law, and that they can go there and do their job, but they have to do that job outside of the polling place.”

The Department of Justice confirmed it received the letter but has declined to comment.

Is it legal to hand out food and water outside polling stations?

It’s hard to believe that handing out food and water — the most basic of necessities — at polling places is considered illegal anywhere in the United States. But that’s the reality in Georgia, where a contentious law prohibits the distribution of food or water to voters at polling places statewide.

Georgia’s Election Integrity Act of 2021, which was signed into law by Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) shortly after the 2020 presidential election, specifically restricts individuals other than poll workers from handing out “food or water to voters within 150 feet of the building or within 25 feet of the polling line.” The law also reduces the time to request a mail-in ballot, shortens the time of Georgia’s runoff elections by five weeks and requires more specific identification to request or return a ballot along with more changes.

Trump’s self-destructive diet: Psychiatrist says unhealthy food choices may affect his mental health

While most states have some restrictions on food and water distribution at or near polling places, only a select few can compare to Georgia’s strict rules.

In Montana, it’s considered illegal if a family member of a candidate, a worker or volunteer for the candidate’s campaign distributes “alcohol, tobacco, food, drink, or anything of value to a voter within a polling place or a building in which an election is being held or within 100 feet of an entrance to the building in which the polling place is located.” However, individuals and organizations outside of those aforementioned groups are allowed to pass out food and water to voters, as long as they are in accordance with the state’s electioneering and soliciting guidelines.

New York has similar rules, particularly prohibiting “meat, drink, tobacco, refreshment or provision” unless it’s valued at less than $1 and distributed by individuals who don’t identify themselves to voters.

Other states specifically ban serving and providing alcoholic beverages outside polling stations. Per the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL), it is a misdemeanor in Minnesota to “bring intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor into a polling place, to drink intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor in a polling place, or to be intoxicated in a polling place.” Likewise, New Hampshire forbids “directly or indirectly providing ‘intoxicating liquor’ to voters with the intention of swaying votes,” per The Hill.

Want more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food’s newsletter, The Bite.

Following its enactment, Georgia’s Election Integrity Act of 2021 has been challenged but to no avail. Back in March 2021, President Biden slammed the law, calling it an “atrocity” and saying in a statement, “This is Jim Crow in the 21st century. It must end.”

“If you want any indication that it has nothing to do with fairness, nothing to do with decency, they passed a law saying you can’t provide water to people standing in line while they’re waiting to vote,” he continued. “You don’t need anything else to know that this is nothing but punitive, designed to keep people from voting.”

food explainers:

Trump teases “very big announcement” in election-eve Ohio rally — after calling Pelosi an “animal”

Former President Donald Trump returned to a key battleground state on the night before the midterm elections, supposedly to support Ohio U.S. Senate candidate J.D. Vance. But Vance appeared only briefly at the Monday night rally in Dayton, with Trump using the event to tease the possible or likely announcement of his 2024 presidential campaign.

There was some pre-game speculation that Trump would actually declare his 2024 presidential bid at the Dayton rally, but it didn’t happen — and not until wasn’t the end of his lengthy speech that he announce, reality TV-style, that he would make a “very big announcement” on Nov. 15 at Mar-a-Lago.

Over nearly two hours in Dayton, Trump extolled the many accomplishments of his term as president before pivoting to the dark themes of his standard stump speech, claiming that drugs are pouring across the southern border, attacking the “fake news media” (as per usual) and protesting that he has been the target of endless witch hunts, hoaxes and other abuses for six years.

“Self-incriminating”: Legal experts warn Trump’s admission at rally may be “admissible evidence”

“When I see what’s going on, it’s a shame,” Trump told the enthusiastic crowd. “Our country is really going to hell. We have a weaponized Department of Justice and a weaponized FBI, including of course the raid of Mar-a-Lago in the document hoax case. Totally violating my Fourth Amendment rights and no president has ever been treated this way.”

Vance, the first-time Senate candidate on whose behalf the rally was purportedly held, spoke for less than two minutes. Trump was clearly the main attraction, calling for “a humiliating rebuke to the radical left,” attacking President Joe Biden and blaming the Justice Department for failing to investigate his false claims of voter fraud.

“We’ve got a Federal Bureau of Investigation that won’t allow bad election-changing facts to be presented to the public and which offers $1 million to a writer of fiction about Donald Trump to lie and say it was fact and pays a man $200,000 to get Trump, go out and get Trump,” he said. “Where Hunter Biden’s laptop from hell was Russian disinformation and the FBI knew it wasn’t and a Department of Justice that refuses to investigate egregious acts of voting irregularities and fraud. And we have a man who is the worst president in the history of our country.”

If the points of reference in Trump’s monologue were not always clear, he fulfilled his partisan duties, urging the crowd to support a variety of Republican candidates in the Buckeye State, including Gov. Mike DeWine and Lt. Gov. Jon Husted, both up for re-election. He also gave a shoutout to Republican congressional candidate Max Miller, a former aide with the Trump campaign and White House, saying Miller “is going to be a great congressman.”

Voting for an “incredible slate of true American First Republicans up and down the ballots,” Trump said, would allow Republicans to retake control of Congress and end House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s career. He described Pelosi as an “animal” before apparently realizing that the remark might appear insensitive in the aftermath of a violent attack on Pelosi’s husband.

“They’ll say, ‘Oh, what a horrible thing he said,’ ” Trump continued. “She impeached me twice for nothing. Nothing.”

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., the GOP superstar who was among the rally speakers, called for impeaching Biden and denounced accommodations for trans people. She called on Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis not to run for president in 2024, saying that Republicans need Trump “back in the White House.”

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

When DeWine appeared on stage, the crowd booed him, likely because the Ohio governor backed COVID restrictions early in the pandemic. DeWine ignored the taunts and delivered a quick speech claiming his administration had cut taxes and funded police.

Trump appeared amused, telling the crowd, “Well, that was a very nice welcome, but he’s up by 25 points,” referring to DeWine’s gubernatorial campaign against Democrat Nan Whaley.

Trump urged supporters to support a laundry list of Republicans both in Ohio and across the nation. “It was hard-working patriots like you, who built this country and it is hard-working patriots like you who are going to save our country,” the twice-impeached ex-president told the throng. “We will stand up to the radical left Democrats and we will fight for America like no one has ever, ever, ever fought before.”

on the final midterm push

Crime is a hot issue, but even Republicans don’t talk about the death penalty: That’s good news

Democracy is on the ballot. Abortion is on the ballot. Border security is on the ballot. Americans across the country have heard about these issues repeatedly in the run-up to Tuesday’s midterm elections.

But on the subject of the death penalty, Americans are hearing strangely little. If anything, the 2022 campaign has featured a deafening silence about the formerly hot issue of capital punishment.

That silence marks an important milestone in the struggle to end the death penalty in the United States and an important tactical victory for abolitionists. It suggests that, at least for the moment, the death penalty has been effectively neutralized as a weapon in the arsenal of conservative culture warriors.

Joe Biden and the death penalty: N.Y. terror case suggests he can’t make up his mind

The silence about capital punishment during this campaign season has been found in states like Oklahoma, which have the death penalty and continue to carry out executions, as well as in states like New York that have abolished capital punishment, and states like Pennsylvania that retain it as an authorized punishment but do not use it.

The silence about the death penalty is all the more remarkable, given heightened concerns about crime and public safety among voters in this election.

On Oct. 31, the Pew Research Center reported that “Around six-in-ten registered voters (61%) say violent crime is very important when making their decision about who to vote for in this year’s congressional elections. … Roughly three-quarters of Republican and GOP-leaning registered voters (73%) say violent crime is very important to their vote, compared with around half of Democratic or Democratic-leaning registered voters (49%).”

Pew notes that crime is a more important issue among older voters and among Black voters, a factor that may be particularly damaging for Democrats. As the New York Times noted on Nov. 4, “politicians around the country have promised in the closing days of the midterm election to crack down on crime. Would be governors will crack down on crime. Senators will crack down on crime. Members of Congress will do it, too. Obviously, their opponents won’t.”

But there’s a noteworthy difference. In the past, politicians at every level responded to public concerns about crime with law-and-order campaigns in which promises to bring back or enforce the death penalty featured prominently.

As law professor Jonathan Simon found in his study of the crime politics of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, capital punishment became a highly salient issue “in federal elections and directly in presidential elections” during that period, even though presidents and members of Congress have almost no authority over law enforcement and punishment, which are primarily the responsibility of state and local officials.

In the 1988 campaign for president, Republican George H.W. Bush famously succeeded in painting his Democratic opponent, Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis, as soft on crime because of Dukakis’ unwavering opposition to the death penalty.

My own research has revealed the electoral power of the death penalty issue whenever voters are asked to express their views on it directly. Since 1968, voters have been asked to determine the fate of capital punishment in their states 18 times — and the pro-death penalty side has won every single time.

Throughout the late 20th and early 21st centuries, death-penalty ballot measures have been used as tools of partisan and political advantage, largely to increase turnout among a targeted portion of the electorate in order to benefit “law and order” candidates.

But not this year.

Only in Alabama will voters be asked to decide on a death-penalty ballot measure. It would “require the governor to provide notice to the attorney general and make reasonable efforts to notify a designated family member of a victim before granting a commutation (a reduced sentence such as life imprisonment) or reprieve (temporary stay of execution) of a death sentence.”

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

But in campaigns up and down the ballot, even as conservative candidates have accused their opponents of being soft on crime and promised robust anti-crime measures, Republican gubernatorial candidates in Arizona, Georgia, New York and Oklahoma have said little or nothing about the death penalty.

Let’s consider a few examples.

For more than 50 years, the death penalty has been a powerful political tool for “law and order” Republicans. But not this year: The national temperature has changed.

Kari Lake, Arizona’s Republican candidate for governor, is a staunch supporter of Donald Trump and his Big Lie about the 2020 election, and has campaigned on a pro-police, “Back the Blue” agenda. “I won’t give an inch to people who want to tear down law enforcement for their own benefit,” she has said. “We need great cops, and we need them to have all the tools and training they need to perform their jobs safely and compassionately. Instead of defunding police, I will fully fund police.”

Notably, Lake has not promised to push for more death sentences or executions as part of her agenda.

Kevin Stitt, the Republican governor in Oklahoma, where the crime issue has grabbed headlines in this year’s campaign, is a longtime death penalty supporter, but anyone reading his website would never know it.

Pennsylvania’s Republican gubernatorial candidate, Doug Mastriano — a Trump supporter and avowed Christian nationalist — says that “Government’s top job is to provide for the safety of its citizens.” As governor, he promises to “hold elected officials accountable for enforcing the law and prosecuting crime. If they won’t do their jobs,” he says, he “will remove them.”

Mastriano says he intends to “keep violent criminals behind bars where they belong and [to] strengthen penalties for repeat offenders and those convicted of violent crime.” He says he will also “support funding for additional prosecutors in high-crime areas.” There is no doubt that, if elected, Mastriano would end Pennsylvania’s moratorium on executions, but he has not made doing so a prominent part of his campaign.

New York’s Republican gubernatorial candidate, Lee Zeldin, has made the state’s crime problem central to his longshot campaign against Democratic incumbent Kathy Hochul. In 2019, Zeldin stated, “I strongly support the death penalty,” and in May he called for reinstating New York’s death penalty in the wake of the mass shooting at a supermarket in Buffalo. But he has said little about the death penalty this fall.

Surprisingly, Oregon, one of America’s most reliably Democratic states, is where the death penalty has been most prominent in the 2022 campaign. Like Pennsylvania, it currently has a moratorium on executions.

Lee Zeldin, New York’s Republican gubernatorial candidate, called for reinstating the death penalty after the mass shooting in Buffalo — but has barely mentioned it during the fall campaign.

Former Oregon House minority leader Christine Drazan, the Republican candidate for governor, has indicated she would lift the moratorium. Even so, she has gone out of her way not to turn the death penalty into a wedge issue. In fact, she has said she personally opposes capital punishment but will consider death-penalty cases “on a case-by-case basis,” rather than setting aside the existing law approved by voters.

More predictably, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis sought political advantage after last month’s sentencing in the Parkland school shooting case when the jury could not achieve the unanimous decision necessary for a death sentence. DeSantis reacted by saying: “I’m sorry, when you murder 17 people in cold blood, the only appropriate punishment is capital punishment.”

But the issue was defused, at least in political terms, when his Democratic opponent, Charlie Crist, agreed that the convicted Parkland shooter should have been sentenced to death.

Whatever the verdict delivered by voters this week may be, the relative invisibility of the death penalty in this year’s political campaigns is a clear sign of the progress abolitionists have made in changing the national temperature on that issue.

They have done so by highlighting the death penalty’s extraordinarily high monetary costs, its discriminatory application and the very real risk of executing innocent people. As the political scientist Frank Baumgartner suggests, politicians have come to realize that the public has “soured on capital punishment.”

As this year’s campaigns show, it is no longer as easy to demonize death penalty opponents as it was for George H.W. Bush against Dukakis more than three decades ago.

But despite this striking progress in the electoral arena, the battle to end capital punishment in this country is far from over. Republicans who have said little about it so far this year will, if they win elections in death-penalty states, surely do whatever they can to keep putting people to death.

This is just one more reason why the 2022 election is so consequential for America’s future.

on criminal justice and the death penalty

Fetterman campaign joins federal suit against GOP “attack” on voting rights

John Fetterman’s U.S. Senate campaign joined Democratic groups on Monday in suing to override a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision barring state election officials from counting absentee and mail-in ballots that lack a correct date on the outer envelope, a technicality with potentially huge implications for the battleground’s razor-close midterm races.

Filed in federal court on the eve of Election Day, the lawsuit argues that a Pennsylvania state law requiring voters to date the outer envelopes of absentee ballots “has no relevance to determining whether an individual is qualified to vote, in violation of the Civil Rights Act, and serves no purpose other than to erect barriers to qualified voters exercising their fundamental constitutional right.”

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling last week came in response to a Republican lawsuit aiming to disqualify undated or incorrectly dated ballots, part of a nationwide wave of legal challenges that GOP groups are pursuing on the false pretense of combating “voter fraud.”

These elections “are the most important in our lifetime”: Democracy advocate on America’s choice

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) joined the Fetterman campaign on the lawsuit, which aims to ensure ballots aren’t tossed due to minor, inconsequential errors. The Pennsylvania State Department has estimated that at least 7,000 ballots have been rejected across the commonwealth because of missing dates and other mistakes — though the actual figure could be in the tens of thousands.

The suit asks the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Erie Division, to enjoin state counties from refusing to count ballots over a missing envelope date.

“As we fight this latest Republican attack on Americans’ democratic rights, Pennsylvanians should check their ballot status to ensure their vote is counted,” DSCC executive director Christie Roberts, DCCC executive director Tim Persico and Fetterman campaign manager Brendan McPhillips said in a joint statement. “We are committed to using every tool at our disposal to protect Pennsylvanians’ constitutional right to participate in this election, including defeating the GOP in court.”

The trio pointed voters to a Pennsylvania government website that allows residents to track the status of their mail-in and absentee ballots.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

The new lawsuit came as voting rights groups scrambled to notify Pennsylvania residents whose ballots have been rejected because of minor mistakes. Republican groups have tried unsuccessfully to prohibit counties from notifying voters whose ballots were rejected due to the lack of a correct date or other small technical errors, but some Pennsylvania counties have still declined to release information on how many ballots have been rejected and opted against informing impacted voters.

Voting rights groups are scrambling to notify Pennsylvania residents whose ballots have been rejected because of minor technical errors, but some counties have declined to release information or inform impacted voters.

“Thousands of Pennsylvanians could be disenfranchised through no fault of their own because they understandably relied on the fact that their vote would count even if they did not write a date (or wrote the wrong date) on the outside envelope of their mail-in or absentee ballot, an error that disproportionately impacts senior citizen voters,” All Voting Is Local Pennsylvania wrote in a letter to county election officials Monday night.

“This mass disenfranchisement of blameless voters runs directly counter to the well-established principle that election rules should not be changed so close to an election so as to effectively invalidate the ballots of voters who relied on the prior rules,” the letter continued, citing Pennsylvania court decisions ahead of previous elections.

Leigh Chapman, Pennsylvania’s acting secretary of state, is encouraging voters who believe they may have made a mistake to contact their local election office. If a voter’s county won’t let them fix their error, Chapman recommends requesting a provisional ballot.

Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf has also weighed in on the case, arguing that “no voter should be disenfranchised simply because they made a minor error in filling out their ballot.”

“I encourage all counties to communicate with voters who have submitted ballots with minor but potentially disqualifying errors as soon as possible and allow them to address those errors so their voices can be heard,” Wolf said in a statement Sunday.

More than a million Pennsylvanians submitted absentee or mail-in ballots ahead of Election Day in a state that features several high-profile and consequential races, including one that could decide which party controls the U.S. Senate. Democratic voters are more likely to vote early as GOP candidates and former President Donald Trump have launched baseless attacks on mail-in and absentee voting, urging their supporters to vote in person on Election Day instead.

The Washington Post reported Monday that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to side with Republicans and block the counting of ballots without a correct date on the envelope “triggered a sprawling volunteer-run effort to make sure voters who had already returned their ballots knew that their votes would not count if they didn’t take action” to remedy any mistakes.

“Nowhere has that effort been more intense than in Philadelphia,” the Post noted. “On Saturday, city officials published the names of more than 2,000 voters who had returned defective ballots and urged them to come to City Hall to cast a new ballot in the few days remaining before Election Day. Community activists and volunteers for the Democratic Party and the Working Families Party began calling, texting, and knocking on people’s doors to get the word out.”

“On Monday, the line to cast a replacement vote at City Hall snaked outside and into the building’s courtyard as volunteers supplied snacks and bottled water,” the newspaper added.

on the final stretch of the midterm campaign

Democratic early voting trounces GOP in three states — analysts see something “different”

It’s unclear whether the “Red Wave” the Republicans have been talking about since early 2022 will eventually materialize, but one thing is certain: Something is happening in early voting and it’s helping the Democrats.

MSNBC showed numbers in Ohio, Georgia and Wisconsin that prove the enthusiasm of Democrats to get to the polls isn’t as suppressed as GOP pollsters want to believe.

In one conversation with Nicolle Wallace and Joy Reid on the election panel Monday, Reid explained that people don’t simply forget that they were freaked out by an attack on the Capitol or that they’ve lost their right to govern their own health care.

She also addressed the issue of a large swath of women voting. It isn’t because they’re rushing to fight inflation, she explained.

Ignore the polls, and remember to breathe: Nothing about the midterms is carved in stone

“Women just don’t get over the idea that they no longer own their bodies. That’s not something that they say, ‘Hey, you know, I wish milk was a little cheaper. I’ll probably get over it.’ That isn’t something that happens,” said Reid. “So, when I look at the electorate and the way that campaigns are looking at it, they’re saying, can Republicans catch up to that 4 million vote lead on Election Day? Because that’s when they are voting.”

Wallace had another point when it came to the issue of choice and abortion rights. She noted that despite being a longtime political operative, she doesn’t trust the polls, particularly when it comes to women.

“I think it’s unknowable,” said Wallace about whether women are being reflected in voter expectations. “Because I think if you don’t trust your Apple Watch to track your period, you’re not responding to a pollster about how, whether you care a lot or not at all. It doesn’t answer the question. I don’t know if you’re taking those calls anymore, if you are that kind of voter. I also think that this idea that the Dobbs vote peaked early — it’s 50 years of precedent overturned! You don’t get over it in, like, 12 weeks.”

She also noted that she thinks it’s a trap to say that people can have democracy or they can have cheap milk, and that was the point that Barack Obama made on the campaign trail over the weekend.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Meanwhile, the numbers are what is making many Democrats hopeful heading into Tuesday.

In Ohio, for example, in 2018, Republican early voting outmatched Dems by 2.3 percent. In 2022, however, the discrepancy of enthusiasm has Democrats in the lead by 4.9 percent.

In Georgia, where there was a competitive gubernatorial seat with Stacey Abrams the first time. Republicans held the edge in early voting numbers by 4.6 percent. But this year, Georgia Republicans aren’t going anywhere near the early voting. They’ve only had 41.2 percent of their voters turnout. Democrats, by contrast, have 49 percent of their voters coming in for early voting.

In Wisconsin, the early vote for Republicans in 2020 was an outright embarrassment for Democrats. They scored 45.9 percent of the early voting with Dems only hitting 35.1 percent. That number has certainly changed in 2022. Democrats are voting early to the tune of 37.1 percent to Republicans 34.4 percent.

These are simply percentages, they’re not charts of actual votes or vote totals, and they’re certainly no substitute for needed votes on Tuesday. If Democrats manage to turn out on Election Day as much as they did in 2020, things could look very different than Republican pollsters have indicated over the past few weeks.

See the full panel discussion below:

on the fateful 2022 midterms

Former GOP chair Michael Steele: Democrats are “inept,” media are “hypocrites and liars”

Former Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele wants Democrats to know that the 2022 election will deliver lots of surprises — including some Democrats may actually like. Where’s he coming from, given that so much of the corporate media can’t stop (gleefully) telling us about the impending “red wave”? As Steele explained in our “Salon Talks” conversation, “Republicans are flooding the zone with a lot of bad polling,” creating a false sense of where this election is heading. In fact, Steele said he “believes the political landscape favors Democrats in the key races.”

Nonetheless, Steele was eager to slam Democratic leaders from the top down for what he views as their terrible messaging strategy this election cycle. “I’ve never seen such an inept political operation in my entire life,” Steele said. “The Supreme Court delivers you a major upheaval in politics with the Dobbs decision [which overturned Roe v. Wade], and everybody’s all jacked up about abortion” — but Democrats still let the GOP refocus this election on inflation and crime.

Ignore the polls, and remember to breathe: Nothing about the midterms is carved in stone

Steele, who became RNC chair in January 2009 after the Democrats’ big victories of 2008 — when Barack Obama was elected and the party won big majorities in both the Senate and House — also offers some advice for Democrats in case things actually do go badly in this election. “Every ounce of energy needs to be focused on two words, only two words, for the next cycle,” he said, “even though it’s a presidential cycle.” What are those words? “State legislatures.” That’s the strategy Steele employed as RNC chair beginning in 2010 and the result was Republican victories in “over 800 state legislative races,” as he noted. Those victories meant that Republicans controlled most state legislatures during the all-important redrawing of congressional maps following the census, which had an impact far beyond just one election cycle.

Watch my “Salon Talks” episode with Steele here or read the transcript of our conversation below for more on the midterms, why Steele thinks the Democrats are so bad at messaging and why he views corporate media as a pack of “hypocrites and liars” who can’t wait to see Donald Trump back on the ballot in 2024.

The following interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

It’s always great to see you, even though it’s under increasingly challenging times. I thought when we beat Trump it was all going to get better. Not so fast!

Oh no, baby. I never thought that. That’s not how infection works. We’re on the cusp of a big decision the country’s got to make.

You’re a former chair of the GOP. I’m sure that, years ago, if I’d asked you, “What does the Republican Party stand for?” you’d have been able to tick off policy positions. Can you tell us today, when you look at the Republican Party, what it stands for?

The country has to answer a deep question: Do you love me enough to keep me? That’s the question democracy is asking.

Whatever Donald Trump wants it to stand for. Whatever Kari Lake or Marjorie Taylor Greene or Ron DeSantis espouses, whether it’s burning books or going after people who don’t look like you or live where you live. It is a different America that they’re trying to make. It is an idealized version of America that never existed, and to the extent that it did, it was rife with all kinds of issues around race and economy and prosperity for people.

The reality of it is, this party in 2016 began to abandon its core values and roots, and in 2020 completely tossed them into the ash bin of history when they decided we didn’t even need a platform to tell you what we believe, because it only mattered what the wiles and whims of a small group of very angry white people was all about. That’s been the animating feature. It’s interesting to see: Here we are now, almost two years out from a horrific moment in our history, on Jan. 6, 2021, and we’re about to go into a midterm election in which the country has to answer a deep question: Do you love me enough to keep me? That’s the question democracy is asking.

To that point, President Biden made his speech about democracy, and he had a line that really jumped out. He said, “What we’re doing now is going to determine whether democracy will long endure.” He literally defined autocracy on television. What is your takeaway from the president of the United States pleading with people to choose democracy over autocracy?

Well, a couple of things. The first is that he is got to make that plea on the heels of Jan. 6, 2021, and you would think that the natural American response would be, “Oh, hell no. We’re not doing that anymore. No, absolutely. Democracy all the way. And these election deniers and half-beat wannabes who are out here shellacking and shilling for autocracy, get away,”

“Out damned spot,” as Lady Macbeth would say. But the reality of it is, they’ve leaned into it, and the fact that the president has to get out and make that address says that.

I’m not feeling people really understanding what it’ll look like in nine months, with Kevin McCarthy sitting there with Marjorie Taylor Greene on his left and right shoulder.

What’s more troubling is the fact that for the press, for the corporate media, it was like an equivalency test. It was no different than a football team winning or losing a game. For them, it’s all about the horse race. “Who’s winning? Who’s losing? Who gets control and power?” And democracy is sitting in the corner going, “Hello, what about me?” Nobody is really responsive to that, and those of us like yourself, me and so many others out here are trying to shake America, as in that infamous moment where Cher slaps the crap out of her male lead in “Moonstruck” and says, “Snap out it.”

Wednesday morning when we wake up, elections will not have been decided. There will still be ballots to be counted, and there will be narratives promulgated by the corporate media because again, it feeds the horse race, acting as if that’s somehow unusual. There’s something wrong there, and they want to put these liars on television who’ve already told us, “If I don’t win, I’m going to claim fraud.”

The big setup is the space we’ve been in, and unfortunately, democracy doesn’t have a lot of defenders. I hate to say that, but if the president of the United States has to go on national television to remind people that this stuff matters, I don’t know. Maybe I missed something, but I don’t think people are seeing it the way it is.

President Biden’s speech didn’t even make the front page of the New York Times in the print edition the next day.

There it is.

That’s not Fox News, that’s The New York Times. Decisions have been made. Do you think the corporate media is excited about this election?

Oh, they can’t wait. They cannot wait. They cannot wait. They are such hypocrites and liars. They’re like the top of the pile because the money that flows into their networks and their cable stations and their newspapers and their websites, every little clickbait that they put out there about Trump is gold, and that’s their bottom line. Again, democracy is in the corner going, “I ain’t that easy. I get it, right? I’m not going to show a little leg because that’s not how I roll. I require hard loving. I require hard work.” It’s too easy for them, Dean, to just give into that. I just watched today as this news was being leaked out that on Nov. 14, Donald Trump is going to possibly, or very, very, very probably, announce he’s running for president.” Who gives a you-know-what? But a lot of people do.

Michael Steele’s first appearance on “Salon Talks”: The former RNC chairman on saving his party after Trump

Michael, if the election deniers win, the more visible ones, like Kari Lake in Arizona, Tim Michels in Wisconsin and Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania, what does that do in terms of the GOP doubling and tripling down on democracy-denying? I call it “democracy-denying,” because election-denying is backward-looking to 2020, and they’re forward-looking. It is denying democracy. Does it embolden that wing of the GOP to go forward?

Why wouldn’t it? Look, there were no consequences for four years of Trumpism, right? There were no consequences for what happened on Jan. 6 so far, and I doubt the DOJ does anything now that there’s rumblings that Donald Trump may run. That’s like saying, “You can’t arrest me because I’m about to go do a job interview next week.” “You can’t arrest me because I’m about to be named CEO of my company.” “You can’t bring federal charges against me for the crimes I’ve committed because of something else I’m doing.”

Every ounce of energy needs to be focused on two words, only two words, for the next cycle: state legislatures.

This idea that somehow this one ass is above all the rest of us is galling beyond galling. We are now sitting here staring this in the eye and blinking. The GOP sees that and they’re like, “Oh shit, we’re actually getting away with this? OK! Then let me look in my bag and see what else I can come up with.” Of course — what do you think tomorrow looks like if you give up on today? I just don’t understand it, but maybe it’s me. I’m actually tired of saying it because I don’t know what else they can do. I don’t want to prejudge the outcome of the November election, but at the same time, I’m not feeling people really understanding what it’ll look like in nine months, with Kevin McCarthy sitting there with Majorie Taylor Greene on his left and right shoulder.

If Trump runs and wins and the media says to him, “But you can only serve one term. Aren’t you going to be a lame duck president as soon as you get in there?” Is he going to push back on the whole 22nd Amendment idea that you can’t serve another term?

Is this a softball question?

Yes, so Michael Steele could hit it out of the park.

Does Donald Trump dye his hair?

Do you think the GOP openly pushes to amend the Constitution, or makes some other kind of argument?

If they have the House and the Senate, you’ve already seen from the Jan. 6 committee what their lawyers tried to do, the lies they tried to bake into the system, the rules they tried to pull over the judiciary. What makes you think that all those Trump judges out there — at least they can find one or two of them that are like, “Oh, OK, yeah this works.” What’s to prevent him creating the chaos that would ensue anyway in another four years, or declaring martial law and suspending elections? People act like that’s just fiction and something that’ll never happen. Well, the last six years weren’t supposed to happen either.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Jan. 6 was never supposed to happen. In the worldview of America, no one ever thought that its citizens would rise up against the government after an election like that and declare that after losing by eight million votes that guy actually won. Everything is on the table with these guys, and they’ll have enough glossed-over beautiful people like Kari Lake stealing for him and making it all sound so reasonable and so together and so smart. It is the worst form of the Garden of Eden, where the snake was in there just working and just sounding so pretty: “Just eat the apple. Take a bite. Just a little bite. Baby, come on, take a little bite.”

Look, Democrats, objectively speaking, delivered on a bunch of policy things. They did it on COVID relief, then they did the infrastructure bill. They helped veterans. They helped invest in electric vehicles and climate change and the Inflation Reduction Act. What were they missing? What happened?

You get the Supreme Court not by winning the presidency, but by winning the state legislatures that draw the congressional lines and reinforce those lines — and by focusing on the judiciary, like the Republicans did for 30 years.

What was missing was actually saying what you just said. You and I know that, but go out there and stand in the grocery line and ask the person in front of you or behind you if they know that. Because the only thing they know is that they just saw a 30% increase in their grocery bill. The only thing they know is that they paid an extra $2 more per gallon to get to the grocery store. That’s what they know. So to the extent that you don’t have a ready, viable communication strategy …

When I was RNC chairman, I was adamant about that, to the point I went through a number of communications directors until they got what I was trying to say, which was, “When you are in this position where the odds are stacked against you, the narrative is not your friend, you have to change the way the discussion is had.” You’ve got to change the way people engage around the things you want them to talk about, and they didn’t do that.

Obama, for all of the great stuff that he provided this past week, where was that six weeks ago? Why didn’t someone pull Obama into the political shop, pull his team in to sit down and go, “Let’s coordinate a messaging strategy. We want the president, cabinet folks, etc., out here saying these things because America doesn’t realize that this could have been a whole lot worse had Joe Biden not been here.” I’ve never seen such an inept political operation in my entire life.

Are you speaking of the Democrats now, the messaging?

All of it. Yes. You get a windfall when the Supreme Court delivers you a major upheaval in politics with the Dobbs decision, and everybody’s all jacked up about abortion. Meanwhile, Republicans are sitting there going, “OK, so here’s the deal. No one talk about abortion. You get an abortion question, your response is, ‘You know how much I paid for gas today?’ You get an abortion question, you say, ‘Inflation just ticked up to 8.3%.'”

And then throw in crime.

Meanwhile, Democrats are here fretting over policy, fighting with Sinema and Manchin over getting basic stuff done, and the country’s sitting there watching this going, “OK, so who’s running this show? What’s happening?” The whole COVID narrative gets blown up, gets consumed by Afghanistan, which wasn’t Biden’s policy, by the way. He was just executing what Trump had started on the way out the door. No one understands how these pieces fit. So yeah, Dean, it’s been very difficult to watch. I know a number of former Republicans, and some current Republicans, who offered their services to be helpful, but apparently no one really paid attention.

I recently spoke to Rick Wilson and they’re doing their stuff at the Lincoln Project. I know you know them well. Thinking about when you were RNC chair after Obama wins, you helped build the infrastructure on the state level to have long-term victories. If Democrats don’t do well — let’s say it turns out a little worse than we think. What would you recommend for Democrats, to rebuild for the next two years?

There should be a very quiet meeting, pulling in key players across a number of sectors in politics: messaging, money, grassroots, constituencies, things like that. Every ounce of energy needs to be focused on two words, only two words, for the next cycle, even though it’s a presidential cycle. Two words: state legislatures. That’s how I won in 2010. I didn’t win top-down in 2010, I won bottom-up. I’m a grassroots guy. I come from the greatest municipality in the world, Washington, D.C. I learned the art of municipal politics, legislative politics, from a good friend and a good political leader, Marion Barry. I applied those strategies in 2010 and won over 800 state legislative races.

You get the Supreme Courts you get not by winning the presidency, but by winning the state legislatures that draw the congressional lines, by winning the state legislatures that reinforce those lines. Those congressional lines then give you the numbers you need in the House. Those congressional lines, ironically enough, feed the statewide races. The second thing you focus on is the judiciary. Republicans have been focused on the judiciary since 1988, ’89, ’90 — for 30 years. Meanwhile, everybody else was whistling, “Yeah, we’re out there fighting for Roe,” but we’re like, “OK, how do you change Roe?” Well, you got to get judicial appointments. It’s not rocket science.

So they need to figure out the strategy by looking at where the legislature opportunities are available. The races could be close in the next cycle. Legislative races, depending on the state, are on-year or off-year, meaning they’re in an even year or an odd year. For example, in 2023, you’ll have races for those legislatures that got elected in 2019. Are you thinking about that?

The Lincoln Project co-founder Rick Wilson on how Democrats can defeat the dictator-friendly GOP

Right now, we’re not. I think Democrats are going to be talking about, “What do we do? Who’s going to be our nominee for 2024?” That kind of stuff.

Of course they are.

Right. As opposed to investing in an infrastructure. What you did was remarkable. I’ve talked about it with other people who’ve not necessarily said it in the nicest ways. But what you did — I think it was called RedMap. You invested big time in state legislatures. Eric Holder tried to do that the other way in 2020 and got close, so at least they’re engaged in the battle.

Remember, Dean, I got roundly criticized for that. Karl Rove and a lot of folks didn’t want me putting money into Wisconsin and Idaho and Arkansas and places that weren’t battleground states. Well, we’re not in a presidential cycle. Why the hell am I spending money in just Pennsylvania or Wisconsin or Illinois or whatever? So we put money across the board in all 50 states, including some of our territories. We won the governorship in Guam for the first time in 2010. It’s how you see the chessboard, how you see the map. I saw the map from the bottom up. Most people look at the map from the top down.

I believe you win races not from the top down, but from the bottom up. That juice flows up, because if I’m excited about a local race, more than likely I’m going to vote for the top of the ticket. But, you know, if I’m just excited about the top of the ticket, I’m ignoring down ballot.

Well, Michael, the stakes are very high in this election. We’ll have to regroup after the election. We can chat about what you think Democrats should do then. Maybe there are some surprises here and there. There’s been huge early voting turnout in Georgia that could surprise people.

A) There will be surprises. B) If you want to get a good feel of where this landscape is, I think it still favors Democrats a little bit more than the false polling that’s out there. Republicans are flooding the zone with a lot of bad polling, and they’re doing that for a reason. If you want to understand the reason, go check out Simon Rosenberg. He is a Democratic pollster who is the real deal, and he’s not trying to show for one side or the other. He’s just giving honest information. I’ve had him on my podcast, and we’ve talked about this stuff. We line up a lot, we agree a lot on where this map looks like it’s headed. So people should still be enlightened, heightened up for sure, but there’s some real sweet spots out there.

Watch more

“Salon Talks” with Dean Obeidallah

Elon Musk’s flaming Twitter fiasco is what the US will look like if MAGA wins the midterms

Last week, President Joe Biden gave another national speech warning Americans that “democracy is on the ballot this year.” He was dead right about the election and its stakes. The majority of Republicans running for office in the midterms are “election deniers,” which is the media’s euphemism for flat-out enemies of democracy. They are champions of Trump’s 2020 attempted coup and often promise he won’t fail when he tries again in 2024. The efforts to throw out the votes and simpy install Republicans in office have already begun. Threats of violence are being used to run honest election officials out of office and to intimidate voters that MAGA deems “un-American.” To make it worse, polls show that not enough Americans seem to care if our democracy collapses. Republican voters are gung-ho to end democracy, of course, but potential Democratic voters are supposedly too checked out to make it to the polls and swing voters are skeptical that the threat is real.

Despite this impending doom, however, I notice that much of my news consumption this past week has not been about the midterms at all, but about gawking at Elon Musk’s comically disastrous takeover of Twitter. Did you see how, after he crowed about his love of “free speech” and “comedy,” he suspended a multitude of accounts simply for making fun of him? How he fired half of Twitter’s staff and then, realizing things would disintegrate without them, desperately started trying to rehire many of them? How, when legions of companies decided to “pause” advertising on Twitter rather than put their brands up next to the N-word maelstrom Musk has unleashed, Musk threw a childish tantrum accusing “activists” of conspiring against him and threatening to “name and shame” people who won’t just give him money?

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

The common wisdom is that the intensity of Musk/Twitter coverage is being driven by mainstream journalists, whose addiction to the platform clouds their ability to remember that, in the real world, no one gives a crap. And it’s true that, despite its omnipresence in political media, Twitter ranks 15th among the most popular social media apps, behind TikTok and even Telegram. And yet, anyone who can read an internet traffic report can tell you that this Twitter story is way outgunning news about the election that will determine the fate of democracy. A Google Trends search looking at “Elon Musk” vs. any of the Democratic candidates in close Senate races shows Musk is clearly drawing a lot more interest.

Same story when you search for “Elon Musk” and the Republicans in these races.

Elon Musk’s “blue check” debacle: His brain has been broken by whiny incels

Republicans say they wish to “make America great again,” but in fact, their plan is to end the very democracy that conferred whatever greatness America ever had.

So what gives? Part of it, no doubt, is the schadenfreude of watching Musk fall on his face after he was able to fool so many people for so long into thinking he’s some kind of genius. But, if I may be an optimist about human nature for a moment, I also think it’s about something deeper. The story of Musk buying Twitter and the story of MAGA Republicans attempting to end democracy are in many ways the same story: Entitled dipshits whose resentments over a diversifying system lead them to take an ax to the very thing they claim to love. For Musk, it’s Twitter, a platform he claims he wishes to “save” but which he will likely destroy in record time. For Republicans, it’s the U.S. and democracy itself. Flat-out false claims of a “stolen” election are being used as a shield to wage all-out war on the very concept of free and fair elections. Republicans say they wish to “make America great again,” but in fact, their plan is to end the very democracy that conferred whatever greatness America ever had.

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

The collapse of American democracy is too big of a story to wrap one’s head around. It’s hard to know what it will look like if a bunch of Republicans seize state and federal power thanks to a handful of swing voters whose theory of political decision-making can be summed up by the shrug emoji. We know the plan, as Wisconsin GOP gubernatorial candidate Tim Michels promised, is “Republicans will never lose another election” again. We know elections Republicans lose will be invalidated, that votes will be thrown out, and a GOP-controlled Congress will simply refuse to certify the election if Biden beats Donald Trump in 2024. But the horror of what awaits us is too hard to look at directly.

Instead, we can look at what’s happening to Twitter, which is swiftly turning into a Nazi-drenched hellscape fueled by the grievances of crypto-buying misogynist dweebs. And I’m far from the only one who sees the destruction of Twitter under Musk as a synecdoche for what’s awaiting the entire country if Republicans win in the midterms.

Republicans will do to democracy what Elon did to Twitter. https://t.co/ynwyzV4W75

— The Lincoln Project (@ProjectLincoln) November 7, 2022

Elon Musk’s epic bumbling is a daily reminder that America is not a meritocracy

You want to laugh at these idiots, but they are prepared to take over the country.

What’s especially resonant is how stupid this all is. Prior to Trump, the prevailing image of fascism in the American imagination was daunting: The impeccable and terrifying formation of Nazi soldiers heiling Hitler in a Leni Riefenstahl filmstrip. But the form fascism has taken in the U.S. is that of the gleefully moronic troll: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia saying “peach tree” instead of “petri,” while trying to scare people away from vaccinations. Trump declaring that, while he may not be a doctor, his “good you-know-what” tells him that bleach injections to the lungs are a health treatment. It’s Rudy Giuliani holding a press conference to spread lies about the 2020 election and mistakenly booking it at a landscaping company’s parking lot instead of the Four Seasons hotel.

You want to laugh at these idiots, but they are prepared to take over the country. Taylor Greene may be an incoherent nimrod, but she is likely to be the point person on the fake “investigations” that are coming if Republicans take Congress. Ben Shapiro of the Daily Wire may not know how vaginas work, but, as one of the most powerful propagandists of the right, he will guide the laws that are being passed to criminalize women for using theirs. Trump is poised to steal the White House in 2024, and what he’ll likely do with that power will make his first term in office seem like pattycakes.

Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.

It’s more than most people can handle, emotionally or mentally. Instead, we look at the smaller example of how Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter is working out. So many echoes of the larger political situation in the U.S. The mass firing of staff, only to beg some of them to return? Reminiscent of how Republicans want to lay waste to the urban centers of the U.S., even though they are the most economically productive parts of the country. Musk’s self-congratulatory rhetoric about “free speech” followed by his banishing people for setting up parody accounts to mock him? That sounds an awful lot like how the Trumpers constantly complain about “cancel culture” while also banning books, terrorizing librarians and using police violence to silence peaceful protesters. Even Musk’s dumb plan to replace Twitter verification with a pay-to-play “blue check” program feels evocative of our larger problem of watching once-trusted institutions — such as the Supreme Court — being hollowed out and refilled with authoritarian hacks who have no fealty to facts, good faith or reason.

Indeed, the two stories are converging. Musk’s insistence that he’s entitled to advertiser money is being embraced by Republican politicians, who are threatening to legally terrorize companies who prefer to spend their money elsewhere. Which is to say, in the name of “free speech,” they’re trying to force companies who don’t want to sponsor racist speech to do it anyway.

So no, I don’t think we’re ignoring the impending doom of democracy when we gawk at Musk ruining Twitter. Instead, the Twitter story gives us a way to understand the much bigger tragedy facing down America if Republicans win. The loss of American democracy is too enormous of a story, with too many variables and unknowns, to even contemplate on its own. But we can funnel all our anxieties through this smaller, easier-to-understand story of the fall of a social media network to the same forces. It’s the same story, even if the scale and ramifications are wildly divergent.

about Elon Musk and Twitter:

Election deniers are embedded in Michigan canvassing boards — advocates say they’re ready

Michigan has been a hotbed for election fraud conspiracy theories since 2020, but this year extremist election deniers have filled roles on election canvassing boards that are responsible for tallying votes and certifying the state’s elections.

The bipartisan boards in several different Michigan counties now have GOP canvassers who still question Joe Biden’s victory and promote falsehoods about the 2020 election being stolen.

Katherine Riley, who serves on the Board of Canvassers in Wayne County — which includes the heavily Democratic city of Detroit and has the largest number of Michigan voters — has continued to deny the results of the 2020 election, has repeated election conspiracy narratives and even led training sessions attempting to expose fraud in the last presidential election.

Ignore the polls, and remember to breathe: Nothing about the midterms is carved in stone

In a training session held earlier this year for Stand Up Michigan — a conservative grassroots group that grew out of opposition to Michigan’s COVID-19 policies — Riley discussed her claims that a physical canvass would expose election fraud and put pressure on the state legislature to act.

“There are still ways for us to really get in there and not allow some of this type of stuff to happen,” she told the group in an audio recording obtained by Salon. “But so when we gather this data, we’re looking to get Kristina Karamo” — the Republican nominee for Michigan secretary of state — “and have people that will prosecute. So if we don’t have that information, what are they going to prosecute, you know?”

Karamo is a prominent election denier who also signed onto a lawsuit before the Michigan Supreme Court challenging the 2020 election.

Riley ran the training on behalf of the Election Integrity Force, a nonprofit that “is spearheading the physical canvass of registered, suspicious addresses associated with the Michigan Qualified Voter File,” according to its website. The “QVF canvass,” as EIF calls it, is “part of the national movement to identify phantom voter addresses and fraudulent votes.”

There is no evidence that “phantom voters” or fraudulent votes occur above a minuscule and irrelevant level in Michigan or any other state.

Since 2020, EIF has raised skepticism about the legitimacy of the presidential election and also attempted to decertify President Biden’s win in Michigan by suing the governor and secretary of state, according to the New York Times. EIF also challenged the ballots of about 22,000 people during the August 2022 Michigan primary.

Riley has continued to support the group’s efforts and echoed similar election conspiracy theories. Speaking at Stand Up Michigan events, she has talked about EIF’s efforts in exposing election fraud.

Patrick Colbeck, a former member of the Michigan state Senate, has appeared beside Riley at several such meetings, and has encouraged poll workers and partisan observers to ignore election rules.

Former state Sen. Patrick Colbeck has suggested that hundreds of thousands of votes were manipulated and called the 2020 election a “coup,” saying “we are at war” with those who want to “fundamentally transform America.”

In a Stand Up Michigan meeting in late 2021, Riley explained she was working with Colbeck on canvassing precincts to identify “lost votes” (which refers to votes cast but apparently not recorded) and “ghost votes” (when an individual votes from an address where they do not live). “We’re looking to clean up the qualified voter roll because — I can go into this whole thing, but it’s a mess,” Riley said.

In another meeting, Riley claimed that the group’s limited canvass of 349 voters in Macomb County revealed 39 anomalies (a purported rate of 18%), which Colbeck claimed would extrapolate to hundreds of thousands of votes across Michigan.

“In Wayne County alone, anywhere from 230,000 to 250,000 votes could have been manipulated by illegal votes as identified by these anomalies,” Colbeck said. “And these anomalies, just to clarify, they’re where it says that somebody voted at this address but that they didn’t vote, and they’ll attest to that. Or it’s a case where there’s — you go to the address and it’s a vacant lot or it’s a dentist’s office or something like that. All of these are examples of illegal votes being cast.”

He went on to claim that the 2020 election was a “coup,” saying “we are at war” with those who want to “fundamentally transform America.”

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Riley has described these canvassing efforts as a way to restore Michiganders’ confidence in the election system and to ensure free and fair elections. She is not the only GOP canvasser in Michigan supporting these debunked claims regarding the 2020 election.

In Antrim County, Marvin Rubingh, a member of the canvassing board, has called former President Donald Trump’s false claims about the election being stolen “a credible accusation.”

Nancy Tiseo of the Macomb County Board of Canvassers has suggested that “military tribunals” were needed to “properly investigate and resolve the cyber warfare 11-3-20 election issue.”

Oakland County canvassing board chair Wilman Cotton and Republican member Bob Copes have both expressed a desire not to certify past election results, apparently because of groundless concerns about voter fraud.

While these canvassing board members would appear to pose a threat to this week’s midterm elections, voting advocacy groups say they are prepared.

“We’re expecting challenges, but we know that those challenges are illegitimate,” said Nancy Wang, executive director of Voters Not Politicians, a nonpartisan advocacy organization. “We know that they’re not going to have merit, and they’re not going to break down our systems or the will of the voters,”

Election deniers may try to apply a variety of tactics to disrupt legitimate vote counting, Wang added, but the election system has been tried and tested before and repeatedly proved to be safe and secure.

All Voting Is Local, another group working to protect the freedom to vote at the local level, has also taken steps to ensure that the electoral process is not disrupted by malicious or illegitimate challenges. The group says it has reached out to 100 clerks in counties with the highest population of voters to make them aware of the new ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court, which allows local clerks to continue using poll challenger guidance issued by current Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat.

That guidance outlines the rights and duties of election challengers and poll watchers, and also pauses a previous judicial ruling that banned electronics in absentee counting boards.

“That guidance is going to be in place on Election Day, and all the clerks that we have reached out to understand that,” said Aghogho Edevbie, director of All Voting Is Local. “They’re ready to go. So we feel very confident.”

Edevbie recommended that if voters encounter any intimidation or other disruptions on Election Day, they should report any issues at 866-OUR-VOTE, a nonpartisan election protection hotline.

“I just want voters to know that there’s a team ready and willing and able to defend their rights, and they should have every confidence to get out there and vote,” said Edevbie. “It has been a rough couple of years and we are in unprecedented times, but people should realize that, ultimately, because of the work that we’ve all done, every single election we’ve had has been certified and the rightful winners have taken office. I am extremely confident that will happen again this year.”

about the threat to free and fair elections

Pandemic greed killed more than 1 million people globally, study says

Placing profits above people when it comes to COVID vaccination has led to an estimated 1.3 million deaths globally and nearly 300 million additional infections. According to new research in the journal Nature Medicine, rich countries that hoarded vaccines — in many cases, even trashing them — have not only contributed to otherwise preventable deaths but also helped prolong the pandemic and spur the emergence of mutated variants that continue to plague the public.

Using a mathematical model crunching data from 152 different countries, epidemiologists from the University of Warwick in Coventry, UK, charted differences in COVID vaccine distribution from the start of the pandemic to the end of 2021. They found that vaccine access varied drastically. Some countries gained over 90% vaccination in adults (meaning two shots or more), while some had coverage as low as 0.9%, with a country’s level of wealth playing a key role in this discrepancy.

“We found that greater vaccine sharing would have lowered the total global burden of disease,” the study’s lead author Sam Moore and colleagues wrote. “Our results reinforce the health message, pertinent to future pandemics, that vaccine distribution proportional to wealth, rather than to need, may be detrimental to all.”

As the virus mutates, the most common COVID symptoms appear to be changing, too

This uneven distribution has severe consequences not only locally but also internationally. There have been an estimated nearly 630 million COVID infections worldwide and more than 6.5 million deaths, according to estimates by the World Health Organization (WHO). However, this figure may be low: Some estimates based on excess deaths anticipate the number could actually be between 16.5 million and 28.1 million deaths.

The WHO also estimates 12.8 billion vaccine doses have been administered, but that hasn’t been enough to considerably stop SARS-2 from surging. Each illness gives the virus ample opportunity to reproduce, allowing for mutations that give it new advantages against vaccines and acquired immunity. And the virus has been mutating rapidly: A “variant soup” threatens to bear down on North America and Europe this winter; as the virus mutates, its symptoms can change as well, making tracking slightly more difficult.

Rich countries have incentives to stop the virus from spreading and mutating. That’s exactly how to keep this pandemic from continuing perpetually, causing supply chain disruptions and overrunning hospitals. And while vaccines have been a fantastic tool for reducing COVID infections and hospital visits, they’re far from the only tool available. Medications like Paxlovid, improving indoor ventilation and masking are also important strategies.

Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.

By most accounts, the COVID vaccines are something of a miracle. In less than a year, as the deadly SARS-CoV-2 virus ravaged the planet, the global scientific community came together and developed effective inoculation on an unprecedented scale. The mRNA vaccines aren’t perfect: While relatively rare, some people can still get sick or spread the virus after being vaccinated. The shots, however, are excellent at preventing “severe disease,” which generally means hospitalization or death.

Vaccination also fades with time, which is normal with certain types of vaccines. Our immune systems aren’t perfect, either. That’s why booster shots have been so important: to regularly retrain our inner defenses against COVID and its variants.

While, yes, it’s possible to get a breakthrough infection, a patient is far, far less likely to need a ventilator or die. Developing long-term COVID symptoms such as “brain fog,” trouble breathing or heart palpitations — a lingering condition known as “long COVID” — is also less likely with vaccines.

Numerous wealthy countries have allowed their vaccines to expire, forcing them to be thrown in the dumpster . . . The US is still a leader in this regard, with more than 82 million vaccines discarded between December 2020 and May 2022.

But many countries have been unable to afford vaccines due to their costs, with intellectual property law and patents being a major obstacle to access. Meanwhile, numerous wealthy countries have allowed their vaccines to expire, forcing them to be thrown in the dumpster. Last month, Switzerland threw away 9 million doses of the Moderna vaccine, while in Australia nearly one-fifth of its vaccine stockpile was wasted. But the US is still a leader in this regard, with more than 82 million vaccines discarded between December 2020 and May 2022.

Now, with this new Nature Medicine study, we know that avoiding such negligence and sharing the vaccine more widely would have likely prevented upwards of 1.3 million deaths. “This substantial reduction in disease burden could have reduced the unmanageable waves of disease experienced by many of the poorest countries that are least well equipped to manage the pandemic,” the authors reported.

This excessive waste stands in stark contrast to the goals of COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access (COVAX), a global strategy undertaken by the WHO and other international organizations aimed at equitable vaccine access. But sharing vaccines would have benefitted rich countries, too, by keeping strange new COVID variants from popping up and by keeping the global economy humming along.

“It’s often said that vaccines save lives, but this is not strictly true; it is vaccination that saves lives. A vaccine that remains in the vial is 0% effective even if it is the best vaccine in the world,” Walter Orenstein and Rafi Ahmed, two doctors at Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, wrote in 2017. “Thus, it is imperative that we all work together to assure that a high level of coverage is obtained among populations for whom vaccines are recommended.”

This was written several years before the pandemic, but it holds true today. Vaccination is about much more than developing effective immunization. It’s about making sure that people have ready access to the same tools that privileged countries enjoy. Viruses, unlike humans, don’t understand the concept of borders and will enthusiastically spread through our communities unless we treat our planet as one home.

about COVID-19

“You will all be executed”: Arizona poll workers endure right-wing election threats

Election workers in a hotly contested Arizona county have endured more than 100 violent threats and intimidating messages leading up to Tuesday’s crucial midterms, most of them based on thoroughly disproven lies about Democratic voter fraud that former President Donald Trump and his allies have repeated ad nauseam for the past two years.

“The harassment in Maricopa County included menacing emails and social media posts, threats to circulate personal information online, and photographing employees arriving at work,” Reuters reported Sunday, citing nearly 1,600 pages of documents it obtained through a public records request.

The election office for the Phoenix-area county logged “at least 140 threats and other hostile communications” between July 11 and August 22, the news outlet noted.

“You will all be executed,” reads one. “Wire around their limbs and tied & dragged by a car,” says another.

As Reuters reported: “The documents reveal the consequences of election conspiracy theories as voters nominated candidates in August to compete in the midterms. Many of the threats in Maricopa County, which helped propel President Joe Biden to victory over Trump in 2020, cited debunked claims around fake ballots, rigged voting machines, and corrupt election officials.”

Information about the prevalence of poll worker intimidation over the past two and a half months was not included in the news outlet’s report.

However, an early August email from Scott Jarrett, Maricopa’s elections director, to county officials warned that a group of self-described “First Amendment Auditors” wearing tactical gear had walked around his department building on August 3—photographing workers and their vehicle license plates one day after the August 2 primary—and vowed to keep up their surveillance through the midterms.

“It feels very much like predatory behavior and that we are being stalked,” Jarrett wrote.

Just two weeks ago, armed individuals in Maricopa County extended the right-wing’s anti-democratic intimidation campaign from election workers to voters—sitting outside a ballot drop box in the town of Mesa.

According to Reuters:

Other jurisdictions nationwide have seen threats and harassment this year by the former president’s supporters and prominent Republican figures who question the legitimacy of the 2020 election, according to interviews with Republican and Democratic election officials in 10 states.

The threats come at a time of growing concern over the risk of political violence, highlighted by the October 28 attack on Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband by a man who embraced right-wing conspiracy theories.

Nationwide, Reuters has documented more than 1,000 intimidating messages to election officials since the 2020 race, including more than 120 that legal experts say may warrant prosecution.

“Many officials said they had hoped the harassment would wane over time after the 2020 results were confirmed,” the news outlet reported Sunday. “But the attacks have persisted, fueled in many cases by right-wing media figures and groups that continue without evidence to cast election officials as complicit in a vast conspiracy by China, Democratic officials, and voting equipment manufacturers to rob Trump of a second presidential term.”

As of September 13, over half the country—55% of the population, living in 27 states—had an election denier running to oversee their elections, according to States United Action. Election deniers are on the ballot for the November 8 midterms in 50% of gubernatorial races, 44% of races for secretary of state, and 33% of races for attorney general.

Arizona is one of the three states—the other two being Alabama and Michigan—where candidates who promote Trump’s “Big Lie” that the 2020 presidential election was stolen are running for all three top statewide positions.

Meanwhile, as States United Action showed in a recent report, Arizona is among the 33 states in which Republican lawmakers have introduced more than 240 bills this year that would obstruct the fair administration of elections by usurping control over results; requiring partisan or unprofessional election “audits”; seizing power over election responsibilities; establishing onerous burdens for administrators; or imposing draconian criminal or other penalties.

Notably, Arizona is one of just three states—along with Pennsylvania and Wisconsin—in which such legislation has been introduced across all five domains since 2021. In Arizona alone, GOP lawmakers have unveiled dozens of bills over the past two years that would allow them to subvert election results or criminalize election officials.

Nationwide, more than 55 election interference bills have been enacted or adopted since Trump launched his deadly January 6, 2021 coup attempt following his loss to Biden, including three in Arizona this year.

According to a survey conducted earlier this year by the Brennan Center for Justice, one in six election officials have experienced threats related to their job, and 77% say that they feel such threats have increased in recent years. One in five election officials plan to step down before the 2024 election, with many citing ongoing intimidation.

Michael Moore, information security officer for the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office, asked the FBI for help on August 4.

“Our staff is being intimidated and threatened,” Moore wrote in an email. “We’re going to continue to find it more and more difficult to get the job done when no one wants to work for elections.”

Why some people think fascism is the greatest expression of democracy ever invented

Warnings that leaders like Donald Trump hold a dagger at the throat of democracy have evoked a sense of befuddlement among moderates. How can so many Republicans – voters, once reasonable-sounding officeholders and the new breed of activists who claim to be superpatriots committed to democracy – be acting like willing enablers of democracy’s destruction?

As a political philosopher, I spend a lot of time studying those who believe in authoritarian, totalitarian and other repressive forms of government, on both the right and the left. Some of these figures don’t technically identify themselves as fascists, but they share important similarities in their ways of thinking.

One of the most articulate thinkers in this group was the early-20th-century philosopher Giovanni Gentile, whom Italian dictator Benito Mussolini called “the philosopher of fascism.” And many fascists, like Gentile, claim they are not opposed to democracy. On the contrary, they think of themselves as advocating a more pure version of it.

Unity of leader, nation-state and people

The idea that forms the bedrock of fascism is that there is a unity between the leader, the nation-state and the people.

For instance, Mussolini famously claimed that “everything is in the state, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value, outside the state.” But this is not an end to be achieved. It is the point from which things begin.

This is how Trump, according to those around him, can believe “I am the state” and equate what is good for him is by definition also good for the country. For while this view may seem inconsistent with democracy, this is true only if society is viewed as a collection of individuals with conflicting attitudes, preferences and desires.

But fascists have a different view. For example, Othmar Spann, whose thought was highly influential during the rise of fascism in Austria in the 1920s and 1930s, argued that society is not “the summation of independent individuals,” for this would make society a community only in a “mechanical” and therefore trivial sense.

On the contrary, for Spann and others, society is a group whose members share the same attitudes, beliefs, desires, view of history, religion, language and so on. It is not a collective; it is more like what Spann describes as a “super-individual.” And ordinary individuals are more like cells in a single large biological organism, not competing independent organisms important in themselves.

This sort of society could indeed be democratic. Democracy is intended to give effect to the will of the people, but it doesn’t require that society be diverse and pluralistic. It does not tell us who “the people” are.

Who are the people?

According to fascists, only those who share the correct attributes can be part of “the people” and therefore true members of society. Others are outsiders, perhaps tolerated as guests if they respect their place and society feels generous. But outsiders have no right to be part of the democratic order: Their votes should not count.

This helps explain why Tucker Carlson claims “our democracy is no longer functioning,” because so many nonwhites have the vote. It also helps explain why Carlson and others so vigorously promote the “great replacement theory,” the idea that liberals are encouraging immigrants to come to the U.S. with the specific purpose of diluting the political power of “true” Americans.

The importance of seeing the people as an exclusive, privileged group, one that actually includes rather than is represented by the leader, is also at work when Trump denigrates Republicans who defy him, even in the smallest ways, as “Republicans in Name Only.” The same is also true when other Republicans call for these “in-house” critics to be cast out of the party, for to them any disloyalty is equivalent to defying the will of the people.

How representative democracy is undemocratic

Ironically, it is all the checks and balances and the endless intermediate levels of representative government that fascists view as undemocratic. For all these do is interfere with the ability of the leader to give direct effect to the will of the people as they see it.

Here is Libyan dictator and Arab nationalist Moammar Gadhafi on this issue in 1975:

“Parliament is a misrepresentation of the people, and parliamentary systems are a false solution to the problem of democracy. … A parliament is … in itself … undemocratic as democracy means the authority of the people and not an authority acting on their behalf.”

In other words, to be democratic, a state does not need a legislature. All it needs is a leader.

How is the leader identified?

For the fascist, the leader is certainly not identified through elections. Elections are simply spectacles meant to announce the leader’s embodiment of the will of the people to the world.

But the leader is supposed to be an extraordinary figure, larger than life. Such a person cannot be selected through something as pedestrian as an election. Instead, the leader’s identity must be gradually and naturally “revealed,” like the unveiling of religious miracle, says Nazi theorist Carl Schmitt.

For Schmitt and others like him, then, these are the true hallmarks of a leader, one who embodies the will of the people: intense feeling expressed by supporters, large rallies, loyal followers, the consistent ability to demonstrate freedom from the norms that govern ordinary people, and decisiveness.

So when Trump claims “I am your voice” to howls of adoration, as happened at the 2016 Republican National Convention, this is supposed to be a sign that he is exceptional, part of the unity of nation-state and leader, and that he alone meets the above criteria for leadership. The same was true when Trump announced in 2020 that the nation is broken, saying “I alone can fix it.” To some, this even suggests he is sent by God.

If people accept the above criteria for what identifies a true leader, they can also understand why Trump claims he attracted bigger crowds than President Joe Biden when explaining why he could not have lost the 2020 presidential election. For, as Spann wrote a century earlier, “one should not count votes, but weigh them such that the best, not the majority prevails.”

Besides, why should the mild preference of 51% prevail over the intense preference of the rest? Is not the latter more representative of the will of the people? These questions certainly sound like something Trump might ask, even though they are actually taken from Gadhafi again.

The duty of the individual

In a true fascist democracy, then, everyone is of one mind about everything of importance. Accordingly, everyone intuitively knows what the leader wants them to do.

It is therefore each person’s responsibility, citizen or official, to “work towards the leader” without needing specific orders. Those who make mistakes will soon learn of it. But those who get it right will be rewarded many times over.

So argued Nazi politician Werner Willikens. And so, it appears, thought Trump when he demanded absolute loyalty and obedience from his administration officials.

But most importantly, according to their own words, so thought many of the insurrectionists on Jan. 6, 2021, when they tried to prevent the confirmation of Biden’s election. And so Trump signaled when he subsequently promised to pardon the rioters.

With that, the harmonization of democracy and fascism is complete.

Mark R Reiff, Research Affiliate in Legal and Political Philosophy, University of California, Davis

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Black voters strike back against election denialism — and its corporate funders

Cameron Gray moves on foot with ease through a Black working class neighborhood in Detroit. The 25-year-old knows these westside blocks, the neighborhood where he went to middle school.

He is going porch to porch encouraging people to vote, while asking them to think about what the utility that bills them, DTE Energy, is doing with their money.

Gray is dressed in black jeans, pullover, knit cap and sneakers. He’s tall and skinny and flows with as little friction as possible while trying to get the word out about a grassroots campaign harnessing multiple teams of door-knockers.

Gray is part of a statewide alliance, the Defend Black Voters Coalition, that is pressuring corporations to stop funding lawmakers who would make it harder for Michiganders to vote. They have asked local corporations including GM, Delta Dental and DTE to sign a pledge that they will no longer support superPACs or committees that funnel donations to any state legislator “who supports voter suppression bills.”

By asking the state for a steep rate hike, DTE has presented activists an opportunity to focus public outrage at a moment when the utility is hoping for public support. The coalition seeks to leverage consumer resentment to bring attention to corporate funding of anti-democratic politicians.

The rise in election denialism and the proliferation of election suppression legislation has given rise to corporate accountability movements across the country. The coalition, though, is one of the few Black-run groups that are pressuring corporations to enlist in the fight against voter suppression — that is, a movement composed of those most affected by voter suppression.

“What’s going on, boss, how are you doing?” Gray says to a man. “We’re just walking the neighborhood and talking to people about DTE and how they’re trying to raise people’s bills and all of that.”

Mentioning DTE, the Detroit-based gas and electricity utility, is all it takes to get many a local’s attention. On Sept. 1, a huge storm pushed through Southeast Michigan and left more than 98,000 DTE customers without power for three days.

A privately owned utility, DTE is regulated by the Michigan Public Service Commission, and it has recently asked the commission to sign off on an 8.8% rate increase. The MPSC will issue a ruling by Nov. 21.

DTE did not respond to repeated requests for comment. In an August email to The Detroit News, the utility said that it hadn’t raised rates in three years and its proposed rate increase was below the national average. It said the additional money generated would fund a “grid of the future” and community solar projects in the region.

The man at the door tells Gray he is planning to vote and he promises to check out the website to which Gray is steering him. “That’s all I need, boss. You have a good one!”

* * *

Joe Biden beat Donald Trump in Michigan by 154,188 votes, just 3% of the state’s vote; in the same election, Democrat Gary Peters eked out a victory in one of the tightest Senate races in the country, preserving the Democratic majority. Michigan is a frontline state no Democrat can afford to lose, and the Black vote has been crucial to Democratic success.

Following the 2020 election, many state legislators proposed new laws that would help erase that margin of victory by making it harder for Michiganders to vote. Meanwhile, election deniers abound on the state ballot this November. Tudor Dixon, the Republican candidate for governor, said as recently as May that Trump actually won the state in 2020; having won the primary, she now says the truth remains unclear and will be investigated further if she wins. (Another Republican candidate for governor who lost the primary has been charged in connection with the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.)

The Republican candidate for attorney general, the Trump-backed Matthew DePerno, is currently under investigation by a special prosecutor for allegedly plotting to tamper with voting equipment in three counties, part of an attempt to prove that the 2020 election was “stolen.” And Kristina Karamo, Michigan’s Trump-backed candidate for secretary of state, says she has “major questions” about Joe Biden’s victory, and charged on the campaign trail that the current Democratic secretary of state will “keep dead people on the voter rolls” and is “intentionally trying to corrupt the election system.”

Then there are three Republican candidates for Congress who say they do not believe Biden won in Michigan, and three more who have expressed doubts about the election’s legitimacy.

Against this backdrop, six social justice organizations formed the Defend Black Voters Coalition. They have staged protests in front of pure Michigan backdrops like the Spirit of Detroit statue downtown and at the annual Mackinac Policy Conference of state leaders on picturesque Mackinac Island. They have called for leading Michigan corporations including Ford, General Motors, DTE and Consumers Energy to stop contributing to politicians “who are working to make it harder for Black people in Michigan to cast ballots.” And they have mounted a door-to-door canvas that links the attack on voting rights to an issue that’s often more top of mind, people’s utility bills.

In this group of political contributors, the utility DTE has a rarefied perch. According to a report by the Energy and Policy Institute, all but 10 of Michigan’s 148 state senators and representatives have received money from DTE. DTE and its affiliates have donated $318,145 to legislators supporting voter suppression legislation since 2016, according to the coalition.

State officials are expected to decide this month on the rate hike proposed by DTE.

“DTE and me, we are not friends right now,” says Cindy Reese, a 74-year-old longtime employee of the city of Birmingham. Reese is a member of MOSES Action, a community empowerment and leadership-building organization.

When the storm hit Detroit in September, Reese said her house lost power for several days. Her husband used to open the garage door for her, but he died of COVID in 2020, the electric door opener didn’t work, and her car was stuck in the garage. Meanwhile she tossed out food that went bad in her refrigerator.

* * *

She has gone to Lansing to protest the Republican-dominated Legislature’s efforts to limit access to absentee ballots and the places where absentee ballots are cast. Lawmakers sought to require a picture ID to vote, which is part of a strategy to limit access to the polls, according to voting rights experts. When Gov. Gretchen Whitmer vetoed the legislation, Republicans crafted an initiative intending to put a range of voting restrictions before a statewide vote.

In the end, Republicans didn’t turn in the signatures they collected in time to qualify for the November election.

Defend Black Voters and their allies now have the opportunity to play offense. There’s a competing initiative on the November ballot that would forbid efforts with “the intent or effect of denying, abridging, interfering with, or unreasonably burdening the fundamental right to vote.” This effort would embed these voter protections in the state Constitution. So now forces are lined up on both sides of this initiative, Proposition 2: Opponents charge that the voting process is endangered without more constraints, while supporters declare that more voting leads to more democracy.

DTE is not the coalition’s only target, and canvassing is not its only strategy. Defend Black Voters is finding other ways to turn up the heat on corporations that support candidates who want to place restrictions on voting. On a late September afternoon, coalition member Eboni Taylor is speaking at a University of Michigan Board of Regents meeting in Ann Arbor. Taylor, Michigan executive director of Mothering Justice, an organization focusing on issues affecting mothers of color, is asking the university to pressure two vendors, Michigan Blue Cross Blue Shield and Delta Dental, to stop donating to homegrown vote suppressors.

Taylor read her statement, and then was rejected by regents who said they heartily supported the work of the coalition but could not support it today. To compel a vendor to stop funding those who make voting harder, they said, would impinge on their right to free political expression.

Afterwards, Taylor sounded stunned. “Voting rights is not a political issue,” she said. “It’s become politicized, but it’s not a political issue. Everyone should have equal access to their God-given right to vote.”

Whatever happens in this month’s election, members of the Defend Black Voters Coalition say they are not going to fade away and are in it for the long haul; state Republicans have indicated they plan to continue introducing legislation to scrutinize voter registration and make voting more arduous.

Cindy Reese says sometimes she thinks of her parents, who came to Detroit from the tiny town of Boligee, Alabama, around 1945. They couldn’t vote in Alabama. But in Michigan, Reese says, “As Black folks, we were glad to vote.”

If her parents were around today, says Reese, ”I think they would be right out there with me explaining to people what people went through to give us the right to vote. We are not going to let anybody take that away — not after all they went through to give us that right to vote.”

Same-sex couples cope with stress more collaboratively than straight couples, according to new study

Marriages are notoriously tricky to master. Perhaps this is why heteropessimism — or the notion that heterosexual relationships are so difficult that it is cool to be openly cynical about them — is so trendy. Certainly it explains why marriage advice pervades our cultural zeitgeist, from “The View” commenting on marital sexual harmony to Reddit being littered with anti-wife jokes.

Now a new study from the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships offers new insights into why it can be so tough to master marriage. Researchers from the University of Texas at Austin asked 838 individuals from 418 couples questions to learn more about their successes and failures in dyadic coping, or the process of dealing with stress as a team. While the couples were all middle-aged, some were in same-sex relationships and others were in different-sex relationships, meaning that the authors could focus on sex differences in whether people use positive or negative coping techniques.

Why is far-right ideology taking hold in LGBT+ communities?

The results? As the study itself puts it, “Women married to women are more likely to receive positive support and less likely to receive negative support compared to women married to men. Both men and women in same-sex marriages are more likely to cope with stress collaboratively than their counterparts in different-sex marriages.”

“Same-sex couples are more likely to work with their spouses to cope with stress than are different-sex couples,” Dr. Yiwen Wang, one of the study’s co-authors, told Salon by email. “Despite these differences in dyadic coping behaviors, the beneficial effects of supportive and collaborative dyadic coping as well as the detrimental effects of negative dyadic coping on marital quality are the same for all couples.”

Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.

Wang emphasized to Salon that, because the study’s findings are descriptive, they cannot definitively ascertain the reason why same-sex couples have healthier ways of coping with stress than different-sex couples. At the same time, Wang offered a few hypotheses.

“One possible explanation is that women in same-sex relationships share common experiences of gender and sexual minority stress and are thus more likely to be on the same page about stress appraisals and communication,” Wang told Salon. “It is also possible that same-sex female couples’ experiences of discrimination and stress enable them to develop more resilience and better coping skills. The mutual understanding of stressful situations may create a close bond between same-sex spouses, which helps them better navigate and manage stress and provide support to each other.”

By contrast, heterosexual partners of different sexes will not be able to draw on the same gender-specific experiences and responses to stress. Indeed, traditional gender roles hold that women should be nurturing and men should be emotionally distant, which “may discourage men and women in different-sex marriages from coping with stress as cooperatively as spouses in same-sex marriages do.”

Dr. Debra Umberson, the other co-author of the study, told Salon that if nothing else, their findings further demolish the right-wing myth that same-sex couples are not fit to raise children.

“In response to those who argue that people in same-sex relationships, and their families, are dysfunctional, our research contributes to a growing body of evidence that this is not the case,” Umberson wrote to Salon. “If anything, it seems that straight couples can learn something from gay and lesbian couples about effective coping and support. That is, collaborating as a team when dealing with stress, which gay and lesbian couples are more likely to do, is more helpful to spouses and relationships.”

The study is not only relevant for same-sex couples, however. By establishing that people from different sexes are more likely to perform unhealthy gender roles when in heterosexual relationships, the study may provide insight into why trends like heteropessimism exist in the first place. If heterosexual people in different-sex relationships want to be happy, they need to learn how to deal with stresses in collaborate and emotionally supportive ways.

“Our findings draw attention to the broader cultural discourses of gender in shaping marital dynamics,” Wang explained. “For example, in a heteronormative culture, men are constructed as rational and emotionally unavailable in relationships. They may enact these gender norms with superficial effort or reluctance to help. The provision of negative support may be a social process through which straight men perform and reinforce the cultural ideal of masculinity, but this process is not apparent in same-sex unions.”

As Wang noted, same-sex spouses seem to feel less confined by the strictures of hegemonic masculinity. If one’s goal is a happy and healthy marriage, that winds up being a good thing.

“Taken together, our study suggests that same-sex relationship may be a relational site where men and women question the traditional gender norms and ‘do’ or ‘undo’ gender differently,” Wang told Salon.

about gay rights

Celebrate Dolly Parton’s induction into the Roll & Roll Hall of Fame with her iconic apple pie

If someone asked you to name something that weighs 25 pounds, perhaps you would say the kettlebells in your garage, the storage container in your closet that still has all of your winter coats packed inside or maybe even a cute, cuddly dog.

One thing that may not immediately come to mind as representative of 25 pounds is an apple pie. Yet such a larger-than-life dessert is available at Dolly Parton’s Dollywood amusement park in Tennessee, which celebrates everything about Appalachian cooking and the region at large.

Specifically sold at Dollywood’s Spotlight Bakery, the pie is an exercise in abundance like Parton’s famous “big hair.” In fact, many specifically seek it out when they visit her namesake park.

Thus, there’s perhaps no better way to celebrate Parton’s recent induction into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame than enjoying a slice of said pie. If you’re not in driving distance of Dollywood, you’re in luck. We spotted the original recipe so you can recreate it at home.

Dolly’s well-earned induction

Over the weekend, Dolly was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame.

“I’m sure a lot of you knew that back when they said they were going to put me in the Rock & Rock Hall of Fame, I didn’t really feel like I had done enough to deserve that,” the music icon said as she accepted the honor. “And I didn’t understand at the time that it’s about more than that.”

15 ways to use apple cider to amp up savory autumn dishes

Parton’s speech referenced the fact that she initially said no to the nomination in March before reversing course in an April interview with NPR. Parton’s utter dominance of the world of country music (and the culture at large) has been ongoing since 1965, so it’s hard to think of why she wouldn’t be “worthy” of the nomination, as she initially suggested.

Still, Parton told the crowd, “If I’m going to be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, I’m going to have to earn it.” Billboard reported that Parton then debuted a track from her upcoming rock album, which included the lyrics, “I still got rock and roll down in my country soul.”

All about the 25-pound pie

The morning after Dolly’s induction, Delish shared a recipe for the aforementioned pie, which is “made with 35 apples and priced at $189.99.” If you buy the entire pie, you’ll go home with the cast-iron skillet used to make it. If a gargantuan purchase of that ilk isn’t your journey, Dollywood also sells $19 slices, which weigh in at 3 pounds a piece.

Dollywood’s iconic 25-pound apple pie (Photo courtesy of Erin Keane)The recipe was published in a 1989 Dollywood cookbook called “Dollywood Presents: Tennessee Mountain Home Cooking.” Because it’s out of print, you’ll likely have to scour garage sales, flea markets and yard sales to find one. Lucky for you, a digital archive is available here. The original recipe can be found on this page.

The pie itself is, by all accounts, basically an enormous pie without any frills. It’s essentially pie dough and a standard apple pie filling consisting of apples, butter, cinnamon, brown sugar, lemon and the like. A Dollywood blog entry notes that the pie was conceived for the 25th anniversary of the park — here’s a video of how it’s made:

https://www.instagram.com/p/ByLE-17FuH3/

What do I do with my leftover apples?

Do you have leftover apples following a recent apple-picking excursion or trip to the supermarket? Queue up a Dolly playlist and start peeling because an amazing pie awaits you.

If you recently had a slice of apple pie, check out our 16 unique ways to use apple pie filling (that aren’t pie) or 24 ways to go savory with apples (because fall’s favorite fruit belongs in more than pie) for even more options.

about apples

Amy Schumer references “Nazi ties” and “Kanye” in the same breath on “Saturday Night Live”

In her opening monologue for “Saturday Night Live,” comedian and actor Amy Schumer called out rapper and designer Kanye West’s public antisemitism.

Hosting for her third time, Schumer was speaking onstage about her husband Chris Fischer’s autism spectrum disorder diagnosis when she said the diagnosis “used to be called Asperger’s, but then they found out — this is true — that Dr. Asperger had Nazi ties, Kanye.”

After she said the rapper’s name under her breath, Schumer looked at the microphone as if something was wrong with it, pointing to it and saying, “That was weird.”

Her “SNL” performance capped a week that Schumer called “the hardest week of my life,” as her 3-year-old son was admitted to the hospital with RSV, a respiratory virus currently hitting young children especially hard. Schumer missed a rehearsal in order to be with him. The child has since been released.

Kanye West is finally canceled. Now what?

Schumer’s remarks come on the heels of increasing antisemitism from West, who also goes by the name Ye. On social media, he called for violence against Jewish people, and wore a shirt at Paris Fashion Week with a white supremacist slogan that has been classified as hate speech by the Anti-Defamation League. West has had his Twitter and Instagram accounts restricted, and has been dropped by major brands, such as Adidas, Balenciaga, Gap and Foot Locker.

As NBC News reported, Schumer’s aside about West “prompt[ed] audience members to laugh and clap.” Also according to NBC News, while “not a member of the Nazi party, Hans Asperger — the Austrian physician for whom the disorder is named and who first published a study in 1944 identifying the characteristics that would later come to be identified with Asperger’s — ‘managed to accommodate himself to the Nazi regime . . . publicly legitimized race hygiene policies including forced sterilizations and, on several occasions, actively cooperated with the child ‘euthanasia’ program,” referring to the murders of hundreds of disabled children in the 1940s.

CNN reported that West “has long been fascinated by Adolf Hitler — and once wanted to name an album after the Nazi leader,” quoting an executive close to the rapper who described West’s interest in Hitler as an “obsession.” According to the source and several others, West had first wanted to name his 2018 “Ye” album “Hitler.”

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

“SNL” also waded into the West antisemitism controversy with jokes on the Weekend Update segment, including Michael Che’s comment, “Seems like he’s doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, which I’ve heard is the definition of something.” “SNL” mentioned West last month as well with a fictional Skecher’s ad, referencing West’s real-life visit to the footwear company’s office, where he was escorted out.

about Amy Schumer and Kayne West

Kathy Griffin’s ingenious trolling of Elon Musk and his Chief Twit verification policy

In the Kathy Griffin vs. Elon Musk Twitter battle, the second round goes to the outspoken comedian.

It all began over the weekend when several celebrities, including Griffin, changed their Twitter display names to “Elon Musk” as a way to push back at the decision by the self-declared “Chief Twit” to offer up the verified blue check mark to anyone who’d pay $8 a month for the privilege. Under the new display names (Twitter handles cannot be changed to maintain uniqueness), the various protesters would then tweet out messages that were decidedly un-Musk-like.

On Sunday night, Griffin’s main Twitter account was suspended after she encouraged people to vote for Democrats under the Musk name.

“After much spirited discussion with the females in my life, I’ve decided that voting blue for their choice is only right. (They’re also sexy females, btw.) #VoteBlueToProtectWomen!” Griffin tweeted. Her profile picture also resembled Musk’s own Twitter profile photo.

Shortly after Griffin’s ban, Musk threatened users with his newfound policy, posting, “Going forward, any Twitter handles engaging in impersonation without clearly specifying ‘parody’ will be permanently suspended. Previously, we issued a warning before suspension, but now that we are rolling out widespread verification, there will be no warning. This will be clearly identified as a condition for signing up to Twitter Blue. Any name change at all will cause temporary loss of verified checkmark.”

Going forward, any Twitter handles engaging in impersonation without clearly specifying “parody” will be permanently suspended

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 6, 2022

Elon Musk’s “blue check” debacle: His brain has been broken by whiny incels

It’s a common practice to change Twitter display names – not handles – for various reasons, ranging from holiday seasonality (e.g. October’s “spooky name” puns), status updates, newsy commentary or in this case, parody. For the most part, parody accounts don’t usually indicate that they are parodies since it’s generally clear from the different Twitter handles, historical tweets on the timeline and humorous content.

Griffin’s revenge

Despite the ban, Griffin found a way to return to Twitter via her late mother’s account to continue trolling Musk.

Using the handle @TipItMaggieG — which once belonged to Griffin’s mother and eventual co-star Maggie Griffin — the comedian resumed her antics by tweeting that she had come “back from the grave” so Musk could #FreeKathy. The hashtag began trending shortly after Griffin’s ban and was repeatedly used by Griffin in her recent replies to a string of Musk’s tweets.

The Twitter squabble soon reached an explosive climax when Musk claimed that Griffin had actually been “suspended for impersonating a comedian,” to which she replied, “I mean . . . you stole that joke, you asshole. People have been posting that joke for hours, you hack. Look, please do a better job running this company. It used to mean something. This is KG btw.”

Griffin didn’t stop there. She then pretended to be the ghost of her mother and called Musk “a douchebag.”

“Elon, this is Maggie contacting you from the spirit world tell u . . . you’re a douchebag,” Griffin tweeted. “This is not parody. This is the actual ghost of Kathy Griffin’s boxed wine loving mother saying I’m gonna get tipsy & throw my bingo cards at you! NOT A PARODY.”

“To the moon, a**hole. #FreeKathy,” she added.

Griffin’s latest reply to Musk mocked a series of tweets in which Musk urged “independent-minded voters” to vote for a Republican Congress. “Who’s house was it that you parked outside for days (or was it weeks after she dumped you???),” Griffin teased. “Elon, cmon. Don’t ya know I’m one of those dames who’s has been around so long I’ve heard from everybodyyyyy??? You were in diapers in your car?? Was it a Tesla?? Gross.”

Naturally, the profile now sports Musk’s display name and profile picture, although the cover image and bio still remain Maggie Griffin’s.

Other celebs vs. Musk

In addition to Griffin, Musk banned comedian Sarah Silverman for tweeting, “I am a freedom of speech absolutist and I eat doody for breakfast every day” after she changed her display name as well. The Tesla and SpaceX CEO also banned Ethan Klein, a popular comedic creator, for doing the same. Klein reportedly tweeted in Musk’s name, “Ghislaine Maxwell is an extremely decent woman who I had the pleasure of meeting several years ago. It’s a shame how she’s been demonized and ran over by the press.” He later added, “Parody account. It’s in my info and header.”

1) 9 days ago, 2) yesterday 3) today. We have fun pic.twitter.com/eTKAp8PBuK

— Sarah Silverman (@SarahKSilverman) November 7, 2022

Twitter suspends Ethan Klein despite him following Elon Musk’s stated guideline for parody accounts. pic.twitter.com/2YYjWSZHOb

— Pop Crave (@PopCrave) November 7, 2022

Additional tweeters paying “tribute” to Musk who were subsequently banned include writer and former pro football player Chris Kluwe, journalist Christopher Hooks and “Mad Men” actor Rich Sommer.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

The only spoofer who hasn’t faced any consequences is Valerie Bertinelli, who changed her name to Musk’s to point out the hypocrisy of his actions banning parody accounts versus his new verification plan that would not actually verify the identity of anyone.

“The blue checkmark simply meant your identity was verified. Scammers would have a harder time impersonating you,” Bertinelli tweeted on Saturday, “That no longer applies. Good luck out there!”

Using Musk’s name, Bertinelli tweeted various hashtags like #VoteBlueToProtectYourRights and retweeted articles about the midterm elections. Her online stunt finally came to an end on Sunday.

“Okey-dokey I’ve had my fun and I think I made my point. I’m just not a ‘trending’ kind of gal,” she wrote. “Never have been, never want to be. Have a safe Sunday everyone! xo”

In response to Musk’s recent acquisition, many celebrities have announced their leave from Twitter. Producer Shonda Rhimes tweeted, “Not hanging around for whatever Elon has planned. Bye.” Similarly, “Girls5eva” star Sara Bareilles announced, “Welp. It’s been fun Twitter. I’m out. See you on other platforms, peeps.”

stories on Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover:

15 best Trader Joe’s fall snacks to stuff in your basket ASAP

Another year, another cornucopia of fall-flavored goodies rolled out by America’s favorite low-priced grocery chain, Trader Joe’s. The cult-favorite store has truly outdone itself, yet again, with a wide assortment of seasonal offerings fit for any self-proclaimed lover of pumpkin, apple, maple, and the like.

We’ve rounded up 15 of the best fall products from Trader Joe’s, but always be sure to give your local store a call and check for availability in advance. These limited edition items fly off the shelves faster than Mariah Carey promoting “All I Want for Christmas” . . . which is happening right now, in early November, so it’s that level of fast.

Go, go, go. Or shall we really be saying “ho, ho, ho?”

1. Autumn Vegetable And White Bean Gratin, $5.99

There’s nothing like a hearty gratin to soothe the soul after a long day of pumpkin-carving, apple-picking, and jumping into leaf piles. Trader Joe’s vegetable and white bean variety is as scrumptious as it is nourishing with roasted cauliflower, butternut squash, and butter beans in an almost–too-decadent white cheddar cheese sauce that you won’t stop dreaming about.

2. Pumpkin Sticky Toffee Cakes, $3.99

The inevitable sticky fingers are worth it after noshing on these soft, moist delights. They may be a nod to one of England’s finest exports (sticky toffee pudding), but the good ol’ pumpkin spice treatment makes them proud to be an American. And a basic one, at that.

3. Non-Dairy Maple Oat Beverage, $2.99

Lactose intolerant? No problem. Trader Joe’s has you covered with this non-dairy, maple-infused oat milk that tastes great on its own, with an oatmeal cookie (so meta), or in a splash of freshly brewed coffee.

4. Pumpkin Chipotle Roasting Sauce, $3.49

Nothing will upgrade fall roasts more than this red and orange-hued treasure, accented with warming spices like ginger, cinnamon, nutmeg, allspice, and clove. Use it to coat vegetables, marinate proteins, or top pastas so that it can shine in all of its sweet-spicy glory.

5. Just The Clusters Maple Pecan Granola Cereal, $3.29

Trader Joe’s beloved clusters are just what we need to enhance our favorite breakfast foods like oatmeal, yogurt, and chia pudding. Of course, you can always consume these with milk like a standard bowl of cereal, but you’ll almost be doing that craveworthy crunch a disservice if eaten all by itself. Trust us on this one.

6. Salted Caramel Hot Cocoa, $5.49

This salted caramel hot cocoa is proof that the seasonal sweet-salty flavor is, indeed, good in practically everything. It makes peppermint and marshmallows look like amateur hour with a rich finishing note that will have you tempted to make cup after cup. (Just do it. It’s almost hibernation season anyway.)

7. Roasted Turkey And Sweet Potato Burrito, $4.49

If you can’t hold out until Thanksgiving, this turkey and sweet potato burrito is the next best thing. And you don’t have to Google “how to roast a turkey” to enjoy it. Cranberry salsa rounds out the flavors for a quick and easy lunch that really does capture the familiar flavors from the country’s most gluttonous day.

8. Bulgur Pilaf With Butternut Squash And Feta Cheese, $3.49

We are big fans of bulgur’s nutty taste and texture and we’re even bigger fans of this thyme and turmeric-infused batch that is topped with butternut squash and tangy feta. The only thing missing is a fork and an appetite (though those shouldn’t be too difficult to find).

9. Gluten-Free Pumpkin Streusel Muffins, $4.99

Gluten-free does not mean flavor-free and these pumpkin streusel muffins are proof of that. A blend of white and brown rice flours, corn starch, and tapioca starch serve as their base, but it’s the pumpkin purée that really shines and makes these as moist as any glutenous treat you can find. Guaranteed.

10. Cornbread Stuffing, $5.99

No Thanksgiving spread is complete without a smattering of carb-laden stuffing to round out its complex (and sometimes conflicting) flavors. And no stuffing is more reliable than one made from sweet, earthy cornbread. Upgraded with roasted apples, dried cranberries, and savory herbs, this mouth-watering blend puts you-know-who’s to shame.

11. Sage Derby, $11.99

Sage derby has nothing to do with the famous horse race. In fact, it’s pronounced “darby” and is a hand-blended cheddar curd cheese with a mix of sage and spinach. (The more you know.) This is the block you’re going to want to set out for holiday happy hours with copious amounts of two-buck chuck, of course.

12. Vanilla Almond Spiced Chai Protein Smoothie, $3.49

Who knew that the notes of vanilla, almond, and spiced chai could lend themselves to bigger muscles? Trader Joe’s did, which is why they’ve introduced this sure-to-be-a-hit beverage with one of fall’s most comforting flavors.

13. Pumpkin Spiced Joe Joe’s Sandwich Cookies, $4.29

Trader Joe’s most famous sandwich cookie gets the pumpkin spice treatment when dipped in a velvety pumpkin spice yogurt that should also be packaged and sold to the masses.

14. Gluten-Free Pumpkin Bread, $4.99

Trader Joe’s continues to not mess around in the gluten-free game by also offering a pumpkin bread, which boasts the celebrated gourd as its first ingredient. Try it warmed or toasted and with a thick layer of pumpkin butter. Fall happens only once per year and you deserve to eat nothing short of what will make you loathe pumpkin by the end of it.

15. Salted Maple Ice Cream, $3.49

The only thing better than maple ice cream is maple ice cream with a hint of salt. This in-demand pint has shoppers talking with its ridiculously thick consistency and harmonious balance of sweet and briny flavors. We’d say that eating it straight from the pint with a spoon is disrespectful to those you live with, but there is no doubt you’re going to finish the pint in one sitting, so have at it.

How voter suppression and gerrymandering by the Texas GOP derails environmental justice

They say everything is bigger in Texas — and that includes the scale and brazenness of voter suppression efforts. The 2020 election saw record turnout in the Lone Star State, an 8% increase from 2016 overall and a 9% increase among nonwhite Texans. In a healthy democracy, such a substantial jump in voter participation — especially in a state plagued by notoriously low turnout — would have been cause for celebration.

But Texas Republicans only saw peril. Echoing former President Donald Trump and the national hysteria over election fraud — the same Big Lie that led to the failed Jan. 6 coup attempt — Gov. Greg Abbott called a special session of the state Legislature in the summer of 2021 to rush a slate of new voting restrictions into law. The fact that a multimillion dollar audit of the 2020 election by the Texas secretary of state found no evidence of widespread voter fraud did not deter the passage of SB1, with the Orwellian title of the Election Integrity Protection Act. “Senate Bill 1 ensures trust and confidence in our elections system,” Abbott said at the signing ceremony on Sept. 7, 2021, “and most importantly, it makes it easier to vote and harder to cheat.”

For Black and Latino Texans, who have fought against disenfranchisement for generations — and who have paid an especially high price for the environmental and public health damage wrought by the unregulated oil, gas and chemical industries that are among the perennial top donors to Republican campaign coffers — the timing and intention of SB1 could not have been more clear: It had nothing to do with “election integrity” and everything to do with limiting the influence of likely Democrat voters, especially Texans of color.

“It didn’t make any sense,” said Bridgette Murray, a retired nurse, environmental activist and community organizer from Pleasantville, on Houston’s east side. “We were in the middle of a pandemic, and you’re saying people can’t use a drop box?”

Houston is in Harris County, where election officials expanded access to the polls in 2020 with measures like extended early voting, curbside and drive-through voting, 24-hour voting and broader availability of mail-in ballots, all of which made voting easier for working-class people and people who were concerned about exposure to COVID-19. Harris County’s voting access efforts were successful: Turnout jumped about 25% from 2016, equivalent to more than 300,000 additional voters casting ballots. But activists like Murray have good reason to worry that turnout won’t be so high in 2022: SB1 restricts or bans most of the measures used in Harris County to expand access to the polls. In Murray’s opinion, SB1 is just “another tool in their toolbox” to keep Texans of color from the polls — and she has witnessed the effects firsthand.

Now 69 years old, Murray, who is Black, has watched for decades as her neighborhood, Pleasantville — once a bustling community of Black laborers, professionals and small business owners — has been walled in by highways, railyards, truckyards, chemical storage facilities and other industrial businesses. In 2012, Murray founded a nonprofit called Achieving Community Tasks Successfully (ACTS) to organize Pleasantville residents to work for better air quality, reduced exposure to toxins from industrial facilities and improvements to flood mitigation, but she says she remembers a time when her neighbors could work with their elected officials to get results.

“It wasn’t unusual for there to be over 90% voter turnout back in the day, and it was basically the power of the vote that helped get a lot of the infrastructure improvements that we needed in our community,” said Murray, who cast her first vote in 1972 at age 18. “Our community leaders were able to get the funding to close open ditches, to make use of green spaces. There were a lot of infrastructure improvements at that time.”

But over the course of her life, Murray has witnessed her community’s voice in regional and state politics diminished to a whisper due to voter suppression and gerrymandering. “Voter suppression means that communities that need those dollars for infrastructure improvements can’t get them,” she said.

* * *

The history of voter suppression in Texas is as old as the state, and for more than a century, it was Democrats — anti-Reconstructionists and Jim Crow segregationists among them — who used tactics such as poll taxes, white primaries and terrorism to keep Black and Latino Texans from exercising the most fundamental right of citizens in a democracy. But the tables have turned. Now, it’s Republicans who are driving voter suppression, and the momentum of their anti-democratic efforts is accelerating.

“The Republican Party doesn’t want Black people to vote if they are going to vote 9-to-1 for Democrats,” Texas Tea Party activist Ken Emanuelson told the crowd at a Dallas County GOP event in early June 2013. Later that same month, with its 5-4 Shelby v. Holder decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act meant to protect racial minorities from discriminatory voting laws. Locked and loaded in anticipation of the ruling, Texas enacted the nation’s harshest voter identification law the very next day.

Shelby v. Holder also emboldened proponents of aggressive partisan gerrymandering after the 2020 census, who used a tactic known as “cracking and packing,” which splits up voting blocs and then crowds them into a few districts. In Texas, this process was seen as a way to undercut the growing voting power of nonwhite Texans. “They make people believe their vote doesn’t mean anything,” said Elida Castillo, who was born and raised in Taft, Texas, across the bay from Corpus Christi on the Gulf Coast. “Nothing ever changes, so why bother?”

The notoriously conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals tends to intervene to keep restrictive voting laws on the books and has only become more aggressive with the addition of six Trump appointees. (Only four of the 5th Circuit’s 16 judges were appointed by Democrats; a Joe Biden nominee is awaiting confirmation for the vacant 17th seat.) Numerous lawsuits challenging Texas voter suppression laws on the grounds that they violate nonwhite citizens’ constitutional rights under the 13th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act have been successful in the Western District of Texas, but time and again, the 5th Circuit has stepped in to block the lower court’s decisions.

As a result, prospects have dimmed for the kinds of substantial gains in the Texas Legislature that could move the needle on environmental policy — from climate change mitigation and resilience to green energy transition to environmental justice. “Gerrymandering has impacted us greatly,” said Castillo, who lives in San Patricio County, which used to be part of Senate District 21 — stretching north from the Rio Grande Valley with zig-zag boundaries clear up to far South Austin — but which is now in Senate District 20 as a result of 2021 redistricting. “You don’t always have an open polling location in your community, especially in more rural areas,” Castillo said. “They have varied hours and they’re usually not convenient for the greater population who actually work, so they’re totally inaccessible and inconvenient.”

Because of the 2013 Shelby v. Holder decision, it was the first time since 1965 that new district maps were drawn and implemented in Texas without preclearance from the federal government. An analysis by the Texas Tribune found that the new maps protect Republican incumbents, dilute the power of nonwhite voters and increase the number of districts where Trump would have won in 2020.

Castillo works as a pro-democracy and environmental activist for CHISPA Texas, a project of the League of Conservation Voters. Like Bridgette Murray in Houston, she has seen her hometown and its surrounding areas overrun by industrial facilities — in her case, a massive plastics plant owned jointly by ExxonMobil and a Saudi partner, and a Chiniere Energy gas liquefaction plant, to name just two.

Castillo said industrial growth in San Patricio County, where she lives, has exploded as a result of the lifting of the oil export ban in 2015; four years of regulatory free-for-all under the Trump administration; and, most recently, with the surge in global demand for liquid natural gas caused by the war in Ukraine. In her work with CHISPA, Castillo helps Corpus Christi-area residents understand the environmental and public health issues that affect them as a consequence of industrial activity, and she helps them make their voices heard in public comment sessions about matters like air quality and water usage permitting.

“I want politicians who aren’t going to constantly sweeten the pot by giving these industries so much money and pushing back when they come with greenwashing pipe dreams,” Castillo said, referring to proposals from major energy companies for carbon capture and sequestration facilities in San Patricio County. “They’re being proposed by the same industries that are causing these problems. It’s like a robber saying, ‘I know I broke into your house, but hire me to fix it.'”

* * *

As Texas becomes younger, less white and less rural, Republicans have reason to worry that organizing efforts by Castillo, Murray and others like them will weaken their stranglehold on state politics. The state has added about 4 million new residents since 2010, and 95% of the newcomers are nonwhite. About 85% of the growth has occurred in the cities and suburbs of just four metropolitan areas — Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Antonio and Austin — all of which chose Joe Biden over Donald Trump in 2020.

Harris County, where Murray lives, is the third-most diverse county in Texas and one of the fastest growing. In 2018, Harris County voters elected Colombia-born Democrat Lina Hidalgo to the position of Harris County judge. She has used her power of the purse to increase funding for the county’s Fire Marshal’s Office (to bolster its hazmat team) and its Pollution Control agency. Under Hidalgo, both agencies have stepped up enforcement against industrial polluters. Hidalgo has also teamed up with Houston-born County Attorney Christian Menefee, who was elected in 2020, to seek damages from major polluters in court.

It’s not hard to understand why the powerful Texas Republican politicians — who take in millions in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry — would view outspoken reformers like Hidalgo and Menefee with alarm. Abbott alone took in more than $12 million from the industry in the lead-up to the 2022 Republican primaries. In the same period, industry donors gave more than $800,000 to Railroad Commissioner Wayne Christian, the senior member of the agency responsible for regulating oil and gas companies.

The more voters in places like Harris County get to the polls, the more likely it is that Democrats who share Hidalgo and Menefee’s commitment to holding the oil and gas industry accountable and taking strong action to mitigate the risks associated with climate change will win a statewide election. That day seems to be getting closer with every election cycle. In 2018, Harris County voters helped make Beto O’Rourke’s bid for Ted Cruz’s U.S. Senate seat the most competitive performance by a Democrat in a statewide race since 1994.

O’Rourke, who is currently running an underdog campaign against Greg Abbott in the 2022 gubernatorial race, has pledged to fasttrack the state’s transition to green energy and prioritize climate change resilience. He’s trailing by a wide margin, but a Democrat running in one of the less publicized statewide races — the race for land commissioner — may have a shot at victory.

Democrat Jay Kleberg is running against Republican Dawn Buckingham to head the General Land Office, which oversees state public lands, the Alamo and veterans’ homes. In recent years, the agency has also overseen allocation of federal recovery funds in the aftermath of Hurricane Harvey, which brought devastation to huge swaths of the Gulf Coast. Houston and its surrounding areas bore the brunt of damage totaling an estimated $125 billion. But in 2021, when outgoing Land Commissioner George P. Bush announced the recipients of the first round of $1 billion in federal relief funding, the city of Houston got nothing.

Houston’s inexplicable exclusion from relief allocations prompted lawsuits and, eventually, in March 2022, a letter from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development threatening an investigation and a potential referral to the Justice Department. HUD’s letter claimed the GLO’s process for awarding funds “discriminated on the basis of race and national origin” and “disadvantaged minority residents with particularly disparate outcomes for Black residents.” As of October 2022, the matter is still tied up in litigation and bureaucratic disputes.

Kleberg has said that he would have directed at least 50% of the first round of relief funds and mitigation funds to Houston and that he would use the GLO’s resources to make the Gulf Coast more resilient to climate change. A second round of $1.2 billion in relief funds is still pending, and if Kleberg wins the race for land commissioner this month, he will have an opportunity to make future disbursements more equitable.

Like many of her fellow Houstonians, Bridgette Murray is frustrated by the delays, and she does not have much hope that help will come any time soon. She watched as Interstate 610 drained flood water into Pleasantville like a funnel during Hurricane Harvey. The water was trapped for days due to the storm surge in the Houston Shipping Channel, causing severe damage in residents’ homes and contaminating groundwater.

“The city did submit a proposal to the General Land Office to address upgrading the storm water system in our community and creating detention,” Murray said, “but none of the projects submitted by the city of Houston were approved. So like so many communities, we’re still waiting for relief.”

Brennan Center expert on America’s decisive moment and the campaign “to end American democracy”

This week’s midterm elections may be the most important in American history. At a minimum, they will be a generation-defining event in what will be a decades-long struggle to save or redeem American democracy from neofascism and its related evils.

The Republican Party and “conservative” movement are reacting to the reality that they will have increasing difficulty winning free and fair elections with broadly unpopular policies, especially as the voting population becomes more racially diverse and cosmopolitan. Their apparent solution is to drive the faltering institutions of American democracy toward a plutocratic or pseudo-democratic system of “competitive authoritarianism” where, as a practical matter, Republicans and their allies will be able to reject or overturn any election results they find displeasing.

A central part of this strategy involves targeting Black and brown voters with a 21st-century version of Jim and Jane Crow racial authoritarianism. Like its earlier iteration, this strategy involves voter suppression, racial and partisan gerrymandering, voter nullification and intimidation and even outright acts of violence by armed “poll watchers” or militia-style thugs.

New Republican effort to feed “distrust of elections”: They want to hand-count all ballots

This year’s midterms will largely be decided by voter turnout. But the freedom of all Americans to vote — and the reasonable and necessary expectation that their votes will be counted fairly — will be greatly impacted by how much the Republican Party and its agents have rigged the system to their advantage.

To discuss these issues and more on the eve of this historic election, I reached out to Sean Morales-Doyle, a director of the Voting Rights Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. His commentary and writing have been featured in the Washington Post, NPR, WNYC, MSNBC, the Atlantic and other major news outlets.

In this conversation, Morales-Doyle shares his profound concern about the health and future of American democracy in the Age of Trump. Republicans are using false claims about “voter fraud” and “election security,” he explains to selectively target Black and brown communities. Research shows that the resulting laws are not a function of mere “partisanship” but reflect an organized campaign to deny Black and brown people their votes in “red” or “purple” states and other Republican-dominated regions. In total, these laws are an attempt to weaken and delegitimate American democracy more broadly. As we saw recently in Georgia’s primary races, even dedicated efforts at voter turnout and mobilization by Democrats or nonpartisan groups may not be sufficient to overcome the Republican Party’s built-in advantage resulting from voter suppression.

Morales-Doyle also addresses the question of why the idea of multiracial democracy is viewed with such hostility and rage by today’s Republicans and many white Americans in general, and argues that it is impossible to properly understand the broad sweep American history and politics — or the country’s worsening democracy crisis — without grasping the importance of the color line. Toward the end of this conversation, Morales-Doyle warns that the 2022 midterm elections are only one chapter in a much larger struggle over fundamental questions of freedoms and rights in America, including the fundamental question of whether the rich and powerful can subvert democracy while facing no accountability.

Given the escalating democracy crisis in this country, how do you make sense of this all? It feels like a nonstop deluge.

I have mixed emotions about the health of American democracy right now. We are at a critical point in the history of our country where we are witnessing unprecedented attacks on democracy. There are more laws being passed to restrict access to voting and to interfere in elections than we’ve seen in generations. The same lies that fueled the Jan. 6 insurrection continue to reverberate across the country. As a result, public confidence in our democracy is waning. But these attacks are reactionary. They are largely a backlash against the exercise of political power by voters of color. As the country becomes more multiracial and diverse, these attempts to end American democracy are only going to escalate. That doesn’t mean they’ll be successful, though.

What is the role of the Big Lie in this larger attack by the Republicans and other elements of the white right against American democracy? The Big Lie is a defining feature of fascism and other forms of authoritarianism and illiberal politics.

The goal of the Big Lie about our elections was at first specifically to keep a president who had lost an election in power. That was of course a partisan project. Then the same lie was used by Republican state legislators to justify the passage of restrictive voting laws after the insurrection. But the danger is much larger than party politics. As our research demonstrates, racism and racial resentment are a main predictor of where these types of voter suppression and anti-democracy bills are being introduced. The lies spread about our elections are designed not just to accomplish a partisan objective, but to undermine confidence and faith in our democracy. So these attacks on democracy are not just about one political party trying to hold on to power at all costs. This is a story about the centrality of race in American society, and about the future of a multiracial democracy.

Language is critical here. There is a national discussion about why “democracy” is important, especially “multiracial democracy,” and why it is something to be defended and preserved. In the most basic terms, what do we mean by “multiracial democracy,” and why is it a good thing?

We live in a multiracial society. Therefore, we should want our democracy to reflect that fact. Of course, from before the founding of our country, with slavery and other forms of oppression and exclusion, America did not reflect the will of all people. It was a very small fraction of the people living in this country who actually had access to the franchise and other types of political power. Across the centuries, we have made a great deal of progress toward a democracy that actually takes all people’s voices into account. American democracy is still a work in progress, because it still does not reflect the whole electorate. It is still not a democracy that is fully reflective of the electorate. Ultimately, race does matter in how our society functions. As such, American democracy needs to take account of that full context.

“We regret to inform you” that Donald Trump is cashing in on white America’s death wish

Based on the level of support for Trump and the Republican Party more generally, the data shows us that there are tens of millions of Americans, overwhelmingly white Americans, who reject multiracial democracy. Why is this?

Fear of change is a large part of it. America is quickly becoming a more racially diverse society. There are people, many white people and some others, who fear that change. Some of that fear is rooted in xenophobia and fear of difference more generally. The disinformation, outright lies and misrepresentations of facts about race, our changing demographics and what that means for politics and the future of the country is also a large part of that fear. The myths of a “stolen” 2020 election and these fantasies about nonexistent voter fraud are an example of how these lies and disinformation can be used to manipulate segments of the American public and their fears about the country’s changing racial demographics.

What is “racial resentment” and how is it different from racism? That is an important distinction that the average American may not be familiar with. Isn’t that distinction essential to understanding the current democracy crisis?

The word “racism” or “racist” means different things to different people. To me, that language captures many different forms of prejudice, including institutional and structural bias that may not appear on the surface. For many Americans, when they hear the word “racist” they think of racial slurs or consciously disliking an entire group of people because of their skin color. Social scientists developed the concepts of “racial resentment” and “symbolic racism” to conceptualize and measure how racism in today’s society is often more subtle and more deeply coded than that. Of course, with Donald Trump and before him the reaction to Barack Obama, we have seen more outright racism that complicates how we think about and discuss race and racism in this country.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

These attacks on American democracy have been described as being a new type of Jim Crow oppression or segregation. How do we locate the present-tense crisis relative to that ignominious past?

When many Americans think about Jim Crow, they summon up these images of firehoses and dogs and racist signs about bathrooms and water fountains. As a society, America has rejected Jim Crow and that type of white supremacy, which means that many Americans look at the world and think that type of discrimination is anachronistic.

There’s no denying that the wave of laws we’ve seen enacted to restrict access to voting in the last decade is unlike anything we’ve seen since the Jim Crow era.

There is no denying, however, that the wave of laws we’ve seen enacted to restrict access to voting in the last decade, but particularly in the last couple of years, is unlike anything we’ve seen since the Jim Crow era. The Supreme Court played a key role in this by gutting the Voting Rights Act. Are today’s attempts to nullify and suppress the votes of Black Americans as obvious and dramatic as what we saw with Jim Crow? Usually not. Instead, vote suppression today tends to involve the layering of many smaller restrictions on top of one another, imposing bureaucratic and procedural burdens that add up.

Sometimes, though, these restrictions are just old-style suppression in a new guise, like the pay-to-vote requirement that Florida has imposed on people with past criminal convictions. It’s a modern-day version of a poll tax, complete with a racially discriminatory impact.

How do these efforts to suppress and nullify the votes of Black and brown Americans through the Big Lie and “election security” bills fit into the Republicans’ overall strategy? Of course, Black and brown Americans are a key part of the Democratic Party’s base. But as you said earlier, the Brennan Center’s research shows this is about more than pure partisanship.

Voter suppression and nullification through legislation that is labeled as being about “voter fraud” and “election integrity” is not just a story about partisanship. This is a story about race and racism. There is a lot of overlap between partisanship, race and racism, but they do not overlap perfectly. The Brennan Center’s new study reinforces that race matters, independent of party.

It is not areas controlled by Republicans where we’re seeing activity to restrict voting rights, it is specifically those parts of the country where the Republican Party dominates and where there are high levels of white racial resentment. It is specifically the whitest parts of the most diverse states.

What is the impact of these restrictive voting bills? These laws have a disproportionate impact on voters of color. The laws also impact the voting power of Black and brown people, including Native American voters on tribal lands, in a deleterious way, even when higher turnout is accounted for. For example, we saw some of the highest voter turnout in a decade in the Georgia primary. It would be an incorrect conclusion to then say, as many did, that therefore these restrictive voting laws did not have the effect of suppressing the votes of Black people in Georgia. You can’t draw conclusions like that from top-line turnout numbers. And if you dig just below the surface, the difference between turnout among white voters and Black voters was larger than it has been in a Georgia primary in a decade.

We saw some of the highest voter turnout in a decade in the Georgia primary. But if you dig below the surface, the difference in turnout among white and Black voters was larger than it has been in a decade.

The rhetoric that is used to spread the Big Lie and to legitimate voter suppression laws is implicitly and explicitly racial. It is not a coincidence that when Donald Trump says that the 2020 election was stolen, he says it was stolen by voters committing fraud in Philadelphia, Atlanta, Detroit and Milwaukee. He doesn’t have to say more than the names of those four cities for the racist message about Black people and other minorities committing voter fraud to be communicated. In addition, when Trump lost the popular vote in 2020, he blamed it on immigrants. Again, race is central to the attack on democracy.

When Trump tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election, it culminated in an attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6 by white supremacists, neo-Nazis and right-wing extremists. Political scientists have shown that the white people who attacked the Capitol came from areas of the country that are experiencing more racial and demographic change. One does not have to be a student of American history and racial politics to see the obvious role that racism plays in these attacks on American democracy.

If the Republicans, Trumpists and others who believe in and are enforcing the Big Lie were to get their way, what will American democracy look like in the future?

If these anti-democracy forces were able to penetrate every part of our government and our courts, our system of checks and balances would be gone. People in power could stay in power as long as they like, and nothing would hold them accountable to you. There would be no reason for them to make decisions about your life that are responsive to your demands and needs or your community’s.

What do you think will happen in this week’s midterm elections?

If these anti-democracy forces were able to penetrate every part of our government and our courts, people in power could stay there as long as they like. Nothing would hold them accountable.

I think our democracy will prove yet again that it is resilient in the face of these new attacks. I believe most voters will go to the polls this year and have a typical, safe, uneventful experience. And the counts will be fair and accurate, with candidates with the most votes winning. I am glad to see high turnout in some parts of the country, but I am worried about the fact that the gap in turnout by white voters and nonwhite voters persists, and is in fact growing in many places. I am glad that for a lot of voters, voting rights and democracy seem to be high-priority issues. But I am worried about the new obstacles that voters face in some states and the impact those obstacles will have, such as burdensome new requirements for mail voting.

What should the American people be prepared for after these midterms are over?

As I said before, we are in a critical moment for our democracy. In the 2020 election, we saw how strong our democracy can be. It persisted and even thrived in the face of a pandemic and an unprecedented attempt at an insurrection. But it sustained a major blow and has continued to suffer attacks in the two years since. At the same time, we’re seeing a wider and deeper awareness of the need to protect and strengthen our democracy. We must build on that so that we can overcome the new obstacles to the ballot box, the flood of heightened violent and racist rhetoric and the attempts at election sabotage. We have a collective decision to make: Are we going to turn out, vote, embrace our multiracial democracy and ensure that it survives? Or are we going to let fear and lies get the better of us and our democracy? I believe we will make the right decision.

about the critical 2022 midterms

“No exhibits, no testimony, no evidence”: Judge brutally rejects GOP bid to disqualify 60K voters

Chief Judge Timothy M. Kenny of the Third Judicial Circuit Court of Michigan on Monday dismissed a lawsuit filed in October by Kristina Karamo, the Republican nominee for secretary of state, that sought to disqualify more than 60,000 mail-in ballots in the Democratic stronghold of Detroit ahead of Tuesday’s midterms.

Karamo – a proponent of former President Donald Trump’s baseless conspiracy theory that the 2020 election was stolen – and her co-complainants argued that mail-in voting was a hotbed for voter fraud. But they never submitted any evidence of that, nor did they explain what harm was caused by allowing people to vote by mail.

“During the November 3, 2022 evidentiary hearing, Plaintiffs did not testify nor introduce any substantive exhibits into evidence. In this case, Plaintiffs’ hearing witnesses consisted solely of Christopher Thomas, former Michigan State Elections Director for over 30 years and Daniel Baxter, Director of Absentee Voting Operations for the Detroit City Clerk,” Kenny wrote in a 24-page order.

Kenny’s opinion reflected his remarks during last week’s hearing, when he expressed bewilderment over Karamo’s failure to provide any proof of voter fraud through absentee ballots or that drop boxes were not secure.

“As a judge for 26 years,” Kenny said, “this is the first time I have ever had a circumstance where the party instigating a lawsuit, when asked by the judge what’s the relief you’re asking for, I don’t get an answer.”

Kenny also blasted the petitioners for waiting until the last minute to attempt to disenfranchise Michigan residents without just cause.

“Plaintiffs sat on their hands for months before bringing a complaint claiming violations of Michigan statutory election law in the August, 2022 primary and the relief sought would create the potential harm of disenfranchising tens of thousands of Detroiters in the November 8, 2022 general election. This is unacceptable and cannot be permitted,” he said.

Kenny’s closing statements were no less brutal.

“While it is easy to hurl accusations of violations of law and corruption, it is another matter to come forward and produce the evidence our Constitution and laws require. Plaintiffs failed, in a full day evidentiary hearing, to produce any shred of evidence. No exhibits, no testimony from any of the Plaintiffs, no evidence from Mr. Thomas or Mr. Baxter indicate the procedures for the November 8, 2022 election violate Michigan election laws. Plaintiffs have raised a false flag of election law violations and corruption concerning Detroit’s procedures for the November 8th election. This Court’s ruling takes down that flag,” Kenny declared.

“Plaintiffs’ failure to produce any evidence that the procedures for this November 8th election violate state or federal election law demonizes the Detroit City Clerk, her office staff, and the 1,200 volunteers working this election. These claims are unjustified, devoid of any evidentiary basis and cannot be allowed to stand. Plaintiffs’ motions for mandamus, preliminary injunction, and declaratory judgment are DENIED. For the reasons stated in this Court’s opinion, Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED,” he concluded. “This is a final order and closes the case.”