Category: partisanship

Categories
election law litigation partisanship

Un-Redistricting Virginia

Gerrymander, Virginia, Circuit Court, voting, elections, democracy

A circuit court has ruled that Virginia’s new voter-passed congressional map, gerrymandered to give Democrats in the state a prohibitive advantage in the next congressional election, is unconstitutional.

Judge Jack Hurley, of the Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Virginia for the 29th Judicial Circuit, Tazewell County, denied a motion to stay his injunction blocking certification of the election using the new districts. Former Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli reports that once a final order is drafted and entered, “it will be immediately appealed.”

If the rejiggering survives the challenge, it could be the factor that tips the balance in the House of Representatives toward the Democrats next November.

Cuccinelli, who is now national chairman of the Election Transparency Initiative, had been saying that passage of the gerrymander would not be the last word. In their rush to get the measure to voters and enacted before November 2026, lawmakers ignored sundry constitutional requirements.

The 2024 special session that took up the redistricting measure had been convened to legislate about the budget. “Its governing resolution limited the session’s scope. Expanding it to include a constitutional amendment on redistricting required a two-thirds vote that never occurred.”

Also, says Cuccinelli, the state constitution requires that “an election must intervene between first and second passage” of a proposed constitutional amendment. “Here, first passage occurred during an election cycle — not before an intervening one.”

Among other problems is the constitutional stipulation that “every electoral district shall be composed of contiguous and compact territory.” The proposed map violates this requirement “badly.”

When you’ve got to go, you’ve got to go, and this partisan map must go.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Grok Imagine

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability national politics & policies partisanship

The AOC-Schiff Thesis

Congress, AOC, Adam Schiff, Eric Swallwell, controversy

I wonder how many others were amused, as I was last week, to hear Senator Adam Schiff praise members of his party for the ouster of his fellow Californian and Democrat, Rep. Eric Swallwell, from Congress.

The tale, as told on this website on Sunday, is that Swallwell — one of Schiff’s closest colleagues pushing the Russiagate gambit against the first Trump administration — was pressured to resign over the massive amount of complaints against him for sexual harassment and other unwanted sexual advances. There is even an accusation of rape. 

Also resigning was a Republican from Texas, Tony Gonzalez, for similar reasons.

Schiff — who claimed to be “sickened” and “aghast” at the accusations and what Swallwell “has done” — followed Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in scorning the Republicans for postponing dealing with the Gonzalez problem. He accused the Republicans of not wanting to abandon Gonzalez because they wanted to continue to maintain their majority in the House.

But this works both ways. Sure, Republicans postponed pressuring the ousting of Gonzalez until Democrats likewise agreed to pressure Swallwell to resign. Both parties maintain the previous balance. This is politics. Not great high-mindedness. On either side.

Further, the big issue was Swallwell’s gubernatorial run — contributing to the splitting up of Democratic votes thereby threatening to allow two Republicans to appear on the run-off on Election Day in November in California’s screwy Top Two system. 

Finding an excuse to undermine Swallwell’s run was surely a big part of the magnanimous Democratic effort to remove him from Congress.

“You think you know someone, and it turns out you don’t,” said Schiff about Swallwell. “I didn’t socialize with Eric Swallwell, but I worked with him on the Judiciary Committee — I would never have imagined that he was capable of something like this.”

I think we know quite enough about Schiff and his partisanship, as we do so many in Congress. They are capable of anything.

Meanwhile, the vote to expel Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.) — accused of expropriating FEMA funds to the tune of $5 million — has not exactly proven the AOC-Schiff thesis on swift Democratic self-policing. She’s still in Congress, though a vote may occur tomorrow, we’re told.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Grok Imagine/Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment government transparency partisanship

Open Secret Re-opened

Peter Schiff, Trump, classified documents

Sometimes the news, hot off the press, turns out to be re-heated leftovers. But while some foods should not be re-cooked, the latest declassification appears worth a second feast.

The “new” news is historic: “The FBI said Monday night that it is ‘closely’ reviewing newly declassified memos,” reports John Solomon at Just the News. The declassified material shows that “the intelligence community kept secret for years evidence raising questions about the credibility and bias of the main accuser in President Donald Trump’s 2019 impeachment case.”

The CIA analyst who posed as a “whistleblower” about Trump’s controversial phone call asking that the Ukraine government look into Biden family corruption in the country was a Biden supporter. Deep blue. A known hater of Trump.

He was also a friend of “fired FBI Director James Comey and [Peter] Strzok,” the latter notorious from his work during the heady days of the Russiagate biz.

The analyst’s name is redacted in the newly declassified documents, but, Solomon notes, other media outlets identify him as “Eric Ciaramella.” 

Why does that name seem familiar? Because Ciaramella’s identity has been an open secret for over half a decade, at least since October 2019. 

Though the name was unsuccessfully protected by Adam Schiff, now a U.S. Senator from California,  the biggest secret was his partisanship, and the weakness of his evidence, both “kept from Trump’s impeachment proceedings by ex-Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said Monday. 

“Gabbard accused the former watchdog of ‘weaponizing’ the whistle-blower process to hurt Trump.”

Not exactly shocking. 

Which the ever-increasing ranks of Trump critics may now regret. How many times can they impeach the same president? 

At some point a Never Cry Wolf element comes into play.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall partisanship

Gerrymandered Hypocrisy 

Virginia, referendum, fairness, voting, democracy

“Gerrymandering is detrimental to our democracy,” declared Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger . . . back in 2019.

“Let voters decide, not politicians,” former President Barack Obama offered just last month. 

The problem? They’re correct!

And Republicans are now sharing the statements by these two high-ranking Democrats with Virginia voters. Why? They oppose the April 21 constitutional referendum that, if passed, would allow the legislature to gerrymander the state’s congressional district lines to likely turn the federal delegation from its current six- to five-seat Democratic majority into a ten to one Democratic majority.

How dare opponents repeat the precise words previously uttered by Spanberger and Obama as Virginians go to the polls!

WUSA-TV in Washington, D.C., headlined its report: “Anti-redistricting mailers in Virginia are misleading, critics warn.”

“This has been misconstrued,” explained Gaylene Kanoyton, the Political Action Chair for the Virginia NAACP. “This does not pertain to these unusual, unprecedented times that we are in right now.”

“It is true they made these statements years ago,” a fellow from my hometown was quoted, “but the situation has changed.”

“They don’t like it because we’re exposing their leaders for their hypocrisy,” argues former Republican Delegate A.C. Cordoza with Justice for Democracy PAC. 

Democrats can of course blame Republican gerrymandering efforts in other states to justify their own, but it is a race to the bottom for voters. 

But, as I pointed out last week, Democrats deserve all the blame. The language on the ballot is completely slanted, telling voters the measure will “restore fairness.” This is so outrageous that even the liberal Washington Post editorialized last month that “Democratic politicians are presenting the proposed amendment to voters in the most brazenly dishonest way imaginable.”

Partisans will always be self-serving. But can’t they even try not to appear blatantly hypocritical?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall partisanship

Against Fairness?

Virginia, voting, districts, democracy, language, fairness

I’m against fairness?

Nah, it’s just Democrats who think that, because I won’t vote for their proposed constitutional amendment allowing the legislature to redraw my state’s congressional districts. 

The official question on the April 21 ballot reads: “Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia’s standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?”

What, exactly, is “fair” about this amendment? 

“If approved, Virginia’s 11 districts would likely go from six Democratic to five Republican leaning seats to 10 Democratic seats and one Republican seat,” explains WJLA, ABC’s Washington, D.C., affiliate. “The new map would draw heavily blue urban areas in Northern Virginia, with rural Republican areas far away.”

Democrat House Speaker Don Scott argues that “levels the playing field.” 

Well, it would be a fairer map if the commonwealth’s electorate were comprised of 90 percent Democrats and less than 10 percent Republican voters. Yet, in 2024, Democrat Kamala Harris garnered just 51 percent of Virginia’s vote for president. Even in last year’s blowout gubernatorial election, Democrat Abigail Spanberger won only 58 percent. During that campaign, Spanberger expressed skepticism of this district map . . . but then, as governor, signed on. 

Democrats, always selective in applying “fairness,” are outspending Republicans “by about 14 to 1 on advertising” and holding the vote for this constitutional question early, in April, with low voter turnout expected — for the first time in state history.

In the minds of Democrats, this maneuver is fair because President Trump has urged Republican states to engage is such partisan redistricting. That’s their case.

But arguments in favor of a measure do not belong in the wording voters see on their ballot as they make their decision. 

That’s unfair.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

Note: In the quoted ballot question, emphasis added.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
government transparency partisanship representation

#ThemToo Movement

Congress, transparency, sex scandal

No matter how partisan politics has become, there are a few issues that our politicians seem intent on supporting — or opposing — regardless of party.

Example? Consider how soundly the House scuttled the recent effort to bring transparency to taxpayer payoffs for representatives’ and senators’ sexual harassment, rapes, and other improprieties. 

Last Wednesday, 357 members of the House of Representatives voted to refer to a committee a resolution that would have forced the release of records related to sexual harassment claims against lawmakers. While that sounds innocuous, in this case it effectively killed the measure. That’s how Representative Thomas Massie (R-Tenn.) explained it, and that’s how it was reported in the news: everyone who voted to refer the resolution to committee knew they were sending it to die.

“Both parties colluded to protect predators,” lamented Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), who had introduced the resolution. “They voted to keep sexual harassment records buried, and they did it together.”

How together? Well the 357 members who protected their comrades from the ire of their constituents included 175 Republicans and 182 Democrats. Remember that there are currently 218 Republicans serving in Congress and 213 Democrats (with three vacancies and no independent representation). Nine members did not vote, while one answered as merely “present.” 

The uncooperative Republicans (willing to stab members of their own party in the back!) numbered thirty-eight, while recalcitrant Democrats (cruelly eager to shine sunlight on their fellow vampires!) numbered twenty-seven. 

While the House overwhelmingly voted to protect its members from transparency and their own voters, back on November 18, 2025, representatives voted 427-1 to demand the immediate release of all federal documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. 

Even more bipartisan. But that time it was for transparency.

Just not theirs.

This is key.

And this is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
election law partisanship

Values of the DFL

Republicans and Democrats in Minnesota held party caucuses last week, featuring straw polls in the governor’s race. Grassroots politics!

“Caucus attendees can also vote on potential changes to the party’s platform,” The Minnesota Reformer informed readers before the big night, reporting afterwards that caucusgoers “approved a bevy of resolutions to alter the DFL’s party platform, including abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, defunding the Department of Homeland Security and assuring people have access to gender-affirming care.”

Then I discovered that Democrats — called the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL) in Minnesota — allow noncitizens to participate and vote in their caucuses. 

Four years ago, a three-judge appeals court panel ruled that the “criminal penalties of Minnesota Statutes . . . which punish unlawful voting as a felony, do not apply to voting in precinct caucuses.” 

That led then-DFL Party Chair Ken Martin to announce: “Our party can finally live its values.” Responding to reporters, Martin had explained at the time that “we are governed under our own First Amendment freedom of association rights and we can determine whoever we want to participate in the party.”

Okay. “Immigrants who aren’t U.S. citizens can caucus and become convention delegates,” a change approved unanimously by the party’s executive committee, according to Minnesota Public Radio News.

“By opening the front door to historically excluded neighbors,” argued Emilia Gonzalez Avalos, a noncitizen union organizer from Mexico, the DFL is “making sure that those affected by the issues in our platforms have a say in the process and can grasp power to truly hold our own side accountable to our shared vision.” 

There are many things in my house, upon which I don’t let my neighbors vote. The DFL is free to do as it wishes in its own elections.* We are free to take note.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* This from the Minnesota Reformer is interesting: “As the Office of Secretary of State makes clear, these are party-run functions, but the results of the straw polls will be posted on the Secretary of State’s website.” If state law doesn’t apply because the parties are private associations, then why is the Secretary expending resources to report the votes? 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies partisanship

Not This King?

imperial presidency, power, executive branch, Kings

“This is why more Americans today identify as an independent than a Republican or a Democrat for the first time in American history,” argued Sarah Isgur during a panel discussion on ABC’s This Week program, the day after another fatal shooting by ICE agents in Minnesota. “Because no one actually believes that either side believes what they’re saying.”

Isgur, a writer and podcaster for The Dispatch, has worked on both Democratic (2016) and Republican (2012) presidential campaigns and even landed a job at the Department of Justice during President Trump’s first term, only later to be fired. 

“Look, honestly,” Isgur continued, “if Barack Obama’s federal officers had killed a member of the Tea Party, who had shown up, who had a concealed-carry permit, who was disarmed before he was shot, that [the protester was armed] would not be what the Right is saying.”

She went on: “And, frankly, the left was all for big executive power, as long as it was Joe Biden. They’re not ‘no kings.’ They just don’t like this king.”

Throughout President Donald Trump’s first term, I recall shouts that he had overstepped his authority under the law only to discover, oftentimes, that the power he was wielding had been bestowed upon our president by a feckless Congress. What I found even more disconcerting was that at no time did those complaining seek to limit these excessive presidential powers.

It appears, as Sarah Isgur suggested, that their concern was not with an imperial presidency, only with this current person as that imperial president.

“If you actually want to do something about the problems, both sides need to actually say, presidents shouldn’t have this power,” Isgur explained. “The federal government shouldn’t have this power.”

Wise government depends on limiting power . . . no matter who is president.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
partisanship U.S. Constitution

Constitutional Defects

Trump, filibuster, law, nuclear option

“It is now time for the Republicans to play their ‘TRUMP CARD,’ and go for what is called the Nuclear Option — Get rid of the Filibuster, and get rid of it, NOW!” 

That’s what President Trump posted on Truth Social back during the shutdown, adding, “WE are in power, and if we did what we should be doing, it would IMMEDIATELY end this ridiculous, Country destroying ‘SHUT DOWN.’”

This was prior to Democrats, off-year election over, suddenly deciding to agree to the same deal to reopen the government that Republicans had been offering for weeks.  

The 60-vote supermajority the United States Senate needs to end debate and vote on legislation is a small-r republican measure, not a small-d democratic one. Reasonable people can disagree over its merits, certainly, but I like the greater consensus it requires. 

What I don’t like is that the party in control of the Senate can at any time change the filibuster rule in any way it wishes, including ending it altogether. 

Rules shouldn’t be this easy to junk. 

Make the Senate filibuster not just a rule, but constitutional law. 

Another major matter of constitutional change is sorely needed. The stability and independence of one of the three branches of the federal government, the U.S. Supreme Court, hangs by a thread.

The number of justices, now nine, is nowhere set in the Constitution. 

Congress and the White House, when held by the same political party — even short of 60 votes in the Senate, because they could simply end the filibuster — could immediately add ten new justices.

Or 20. 

And then confirm all the president’s picks.

All something Democrats mused about doing years ago: packing the High Court with many new justices to magically engineer a new Democratic Party majority on the SCOTUS. 

The number of justices, like the Senate’s super-majoritarian filibuster, aren’t written in stone.

But should be.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies partisanship

Independent of the Box

Karine Jean-Pierre, Democratic Party, media, news, outside the box

Today, Karine Jean-Pierre’s “long-awaited” Independent, a book on her recent transformation into an “independent” political activist/theorist/shill, hits the bookstores, with Amazon promising to deliver the tome on the 24th.

I write about it now hoping never to have to write about it later. You guessed it: I’m not planning on reading the thing.

I did, however, cover her turn-of-coat re-alignment/what-have-you in June. “I think we need to stop thinking in boxes and think outside of our boxes,” I quoted her in “Rats-a-Jumpin’.” 

Whatever else, she had certainly not resisted cliché!

But can we be sure of her sincerity? It’s hard to imagine a paid fibber writing a book and expecting it to be taken at face value. Still, the story is her story, not the full story, so there may be some truth in it.

“The Democratic Party had defined my life, my career,” The Epoch Times quotes her in apparent sincere mode. “Everything I’d done to make people’s lives better had been connected to it. The party was the vehicle that allowed me not just to have a front seat to history, working first on [President Barack] Obama’s presidential campaign then in his administration, but also to make some history of my own as the first Black woman and openly queer person to ever be a White House press secretary. Never had I considered leaving the party until now.”

This may possibly be seen as galling to long-term independents: much ado about a latecomer’s anguish.

Tellingly, there’s no mention, in the pre-publication buzz, of Russiagate or the Epstein case — that is, something that might make the book worthwhile. Only her in-the-box account of Biden’s competence provides any interest at all.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts