Trump On the Wrong Side of the Issue, Part I: The Texas Gerrymander

The endeavor to re-gerrymander the Texas congressional districts has become almost comical in the last 24 hours. And while Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) is the point man, the whole scheme was at the instigation of Donald Trump, which is why we wrote the headline that we did.

As we noted yesterday, the Democrats in the Texas legislature are, by dint of the rules that govern that entity, a very silent minority. And so, when it comes to this gerrymandering scheme, they have exactly one viable tool at their disposal: quorum-busting. The Democratic members have decamped to other states, mostly Illinois, where Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) is providing housing and security.

Abbott started his day yesterday by whining that the Democrats' maneuvering is "outrageous." Pot, meet kettle. He then moved on to two different approaches to solving the problem, rooted in legal theories that are mutually exclusive. The first approach was to invoke a provision of the Texas State Code that says that an office can be declared vacant if its holder has been found to have "abandoned" it. So, the general idea is that it would be declared that the rebellious Democrats have vacated their seats, reducing the number of members in the legislature, and making it possible for the Republicans to achieve quorum all by themselves.

There are several problems with this approach, however. To start, and for obvious reasons, the decision of "Is the office abandoned?" is not in the hands of the governor or the members of the legislature. No, it's a decision that has to be made by a judge. And with roughly 60 cases to be adjudicated, it would take some time to reach a resolution. It is also far from guaranteed that a bunch of judges would agree that leaving town for a week or two, even while the legislature is in session, constitutes "abandonment."

Presumably aware that the abandonment approach is probably a dead end, Abbott eventually moved on to a different approach, arguing that the members have broken the law by leaving the state, and so are subject to arrest. To that end, he arranged for the speaker of the Texas House to issue warrants for the arrest of the quorum-jumping Democrats.

This approach is another dead end, and Abbott very well knows it. He endeavored to frame his announcements in a manner meant to imply that some actual crime had taken place, using phrases like "dereliction of duty" (a crime for soldiers, perhaps, but not state legislators) and declaring that he was going to have the Texas Rangers look into the possibility of bribery or fraud. But the fact is that skipping work is not a crime, and the warrants only carry the force of law within Texas' borders. If they were legitimate criminal warrants, then Abbott could ask for the members to be arrested and extradited back to Texas. But they are not criminal warrants because, again, you have to have a crime first.

What it amounts to is that the Governor and the Democratic legislators are now engaged in something of a chess game. Ultimately, if the maps are going to be changed, it will need to happen by the end of the year. Could the Democrats plausibly run out the clock? Maybe. It would not be easy, but it's not impossible, either. Keep in mind that the legislature is in special session right now. By Texas law, the session cannot last longer than 30 days. So, this particular special session will expire on August 21. Abbott is free to call as many additional special sessions as he wishes, but there are some practical considerations imposed by: (1) the ability of Republicans to attend, and to travel to Austin and (2) the holidays. Also, the Democrats can't be preemptively arrested for quorum busting; they actually have to quorum-bust first. So, if Abbott calls another session for, say, September 15, it's possible for the Democrats to take another vacation, starting September 14. And all of this maneuvering would be in service of a gerrymander that could become a dummymander. The time might come that maybe Abbott will be forced to concede it's not worth it.

Whatever ultimately happens in Texas, both Abbott and Trump are getting a lot of attention right now for maneuvering that is fundamentally undemocratic, and is fundamentally about denying many Americans a voice in their own governance. This is not a popular position. Consider the states that have adopted some sort of commission to draw district boundaries for either state or federal offices (or, sometimes, for both):

State	PVI	Setup
Alaska	R+6	5-member commission, appointed by various officeholders
Arizona	R+2	5-member commission; 2R, 2D, 1 independent
California	D+12	14-member commission; 5R, 5D, 4 independents
Colorado	D+6	12-member commission; 4R, 4D, 4 independents
Hawaii	D+13	9-member commission, appointed by various officeholders
Idaho	R+18	6-member commission; 3R, 3D
Iowa	R+6	Nonpartisan state officials draw maps, which are approved by legislature
Michigan	EVEN	13-member commission; 4R, 4D, 5 independents
Missouri	R+9	20-member commission; 10R, 10D
New Jersey	D+4	13-member commission; 6R, 6D, 1 person chosen by the other 12 members
Ohio	R+5	7-member commission; governor, auditor, SoS along with 2R, 2D
Pennsylvania	R+1	5-member commission; 2R, 2D, 1 person chosen by the other 4 members
Virginia	D+3	16-member commission; 8R, 8D
Washington	D+10	5-member commission; 2R, 2D, 1 person chosen by the other 4 members

The means by which commissioners are selected varies widely by state, and is often very complicated. For example, here's the process in Virginia:

Majority and minority leaders of both houses of the legislature each select two members of their caucuses serve on commission. Separately, a panel of retired judges reviews applications from members of the public to serve as a citizen commissioner. The judges will submit the names of applicants who meet qualifications to the legislative leaders, who select 16 names for the retired judges from each caucus (Senate Majority, Senate Minority, House Majority, House Minority). The retired judges then select two citizen members from each leader's slate of 16. The chair of the committee must be one of the citizen members of the redistricting commission, and is selected by a full vote of the committee.

Regardless of how they get there, each state has pretty clear goals as to the partisan makeup of its redistricting commission. We did exclude Arkansas from the list, as their commission is made up of three officeholders, all of them Republicans. So, that one's just political theater, a performance of "fairness." We also excluded states where the commission is merely advisory.

In any event, as you can see, the table above is not a sea of blue. There are redistricting commissions in sapphire-blue states, in ruby-red states, and in many states shaded somewhere in between those two extremes (we coded anything D+3 to R+3 as purple). This backs up the general notion, also supported by polling, that opposition to gerrymandering crosses party lines. Democrats are probably a bit more anti-gerrymandering than Republicans are, but it's definitely a bipartisan position. And that's gerrymandering in general; the maneuvering being undertaken in Texas right now, by Trump and Abbott, is undoubtedly even less popular, as it is an obvious naked power grab.

At least one Republican member of the House has decided to step forward, and to push back against what's happening in Texas. That would be Rep. Kevin Kiley (R-CA), who is looking at a tough reelection campaign next year in his R+2 district. He announced yesterday that he will introduce legislation that prohibits the re-drawing of district maps more than once per census cycle. Kiley's announcement frames his bill as an attempt to rein in Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA). He is, after all, a Republican who needs Republican votes. However, the legislation would also put the kibosh on what Abbott is doing, and Abbott/Texas are much further along in the process than Newsom/California.

Our hope, given that gerrymandering is not only unpopular, but is being abused even more flagrantly than is normally the case, is that Congress will actually take some sort of action. We have no doubt that if the Republicans who control both chambers felt confident that Texas' maneuvering would give the GOP substantially better odds of holding the House, they would sit on their hands and do nothing. But between the risk of a dummymander, and of California and other blue states responding in kind, and the bad PR of anti-democratic maneuvering, the better part of valor, from a political perspective, might be to pass the bill introduced by Kiley, or some other such measure. (Z)

Trump On the Wrong Side of the Issue, Part II: Energy

Throughout his political career, Donald Trump has been obsessed with rolling back environmental legislation, and returning to the energy economy of the 1970s. Is that because his mindset is stuck in the gear it assumed half a century ago? Is it due to lobbying from Big Oil? Is it because Barack Obama and Joe Biden were pro-environment, and Trump is reflexively opposed to anything they supported? Could be any or all of these, or something else. We don't entirely get it.

In any event, during his first term, Trump had limited success with his reactionary approach to fossil fuels. He was delighted to throw open vast acreage to drilling from Big Oil, only to discover that nobody was bidding on the opportunity. The basic reason is that it takes a very long time, and a very large amount of money, to build oil extraction infrastructure, and it's no longer clear that's a smart gamble. Big Oil is, at least for the moment, getting what it needs from existing infrastructure, and is better off finding new ways to get more oil out of existing oil fields, rather than opening up new frontiers in drilling.

That did not stop Trump from running in 2024 on "Drill, baby drill!" This was the third time that was a core plank for him. We are not sure who, if anyone, was impressed by this promise/claim, but things are once again not going well for Trump's reactionary "environmentalism." We're not actually to the point in Trump v2.0 that Big Oil will be able to turn up their noses at the opportunity to bid on new oil fields. However, other aspects of Trump's environmental approach are going over like a lead balloon.

First up is the decision by Trump's Environmental Predation Protection Agency to roll back an Obama-era finding that global warming is a threat to public health. That finding gave the EPA vast authority to regulate emissions, particularly from cars and industrial concerns. And just in case it was not clear why the EPA changed course, the announcement about overturning the Obama-era decision was followed by a second announcement that the agency is getting rid of all motor-vehicle emissions limits.

Presumably, the Trump administration expected to be showered with praise by numerous energy concerns, since many of those energy concerns (including the trade associations that represent electricity providers and American manufacturers) were infuriated by the Obama-era decision, and fought it tooth-and-nail in court (unsuccessfully, obviously). That praise was not forthcoming (which means that the "donations" Trump undoubtedly expected are not likely forthcoming either). It is not well, these days, for a large business concern to be critical of Trump, and so the response to the EPA's announcement was... a whole bunch of silence.

And how about a second example? The BBB contains language that empowers the Trump-led Department of Interior to slash tax credits for wind and solar projects. And within days of the bill becoming law, on Trump's direct orders, the DoI did exactly that, making clear that those credits will be gone with the wind on the very first day allowed by the legislation (Jan. 1, 2027). This news left some Republican senators, to use their own words, "dismayed." One wonders if these people are being dishonest, naive, or just stupid. After all, the verbiage was put into the bill for a reason.

In any event, several Republican senators are now doing what they can to push back. Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and John Curtis (R-UT) have put holds on several high-level nominees for positions in the Treasury Department. Two members are not enough to kill a nomination, but Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Mike Rounds (R-SD) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) have also indicated they are not happy with Trump's renewable energy plans. So, their votes might be available in support of Grassley and Curtis. Keep in mind that it's easier to stick one's neck out when it's not the only neck being exposed. Trump is pretty good at making one member suffer for rebellious behavior (unless that member is Rep. Thomas Massie, R-KY). The president is less effective when he tries to take aim at four or five targets at the same time.

The bottom line is that it is clear that Trump's anti-environmental agenda is not popular, even with the industries it should be popular with, and even within the ranks of his own party. That's not to say there is NO support for his position, but it's probably fair to say that between the Democrats and the leery Republicans, opinion is something like 2-to-1 against Trump's position. It's easy enough to come up with at least some of the reasons that would be the case:

• As we have noted many times, the industrial concerns that make fuel-consuming items ultimately have many masters. If they make, say, a car that produces few or no emissions, they can sell that car in eco-friendly places AND in places that don't give a damn about greenhouse gases. On the other hand, if they make a gas-guzzling carbon machine, they can only sell in the places that don't give a damn. At the moment, most of Europe, much of Asia, Canada, large blue states like California and Illinois, and the U.S. when it's under Democratic governance all want eco-friendly products. The trend is only going to gain speed, particularly given that many nations, states, and municipalities have set aggressive net-zero goals that are supposed to be met in the next couple of decades. The industrial concerns can see the writing on the wall (not to mention the demands of their current customer base), and can see that if they commit to bad-for-the-environment products, they will be setting themselves up for disaster sometime very soon.
  
  
• Large-scale wind and solar farms generally have to be built in low-population areas with lots of open space. In other words, rural areas. And you know where there are lots of rural areas that could use some investment in 21st century industries? Red states. Chuck Grassley, in particular, has been representing Iowa in Congress for 50 years. He knows pork when he sees it, no matter what particular costume it might wear.
  
  
• Climate change denial might have been a political winner a decade ago. However, the voters who could afford to engage in that fantasy, by virtue of not having to worry about whether or not Earth will be a hellscape by the year 2060, are dying off. The folks who backed that position with hundreds of millions of dollars in donations are also shuffling off this mortal coil. In particular, the Koch brothers did more than any other interest to turn the GOP into a climate-change-denial party. And one of the Kochs is now dead, while the other is 89 and has had multiple bouts with cancer. Young voters almost universally believe in climate change, and in trying to fight climate change, since they are going to have to live with it. That means climate change denial is not exactly a growth opportunity for politicians on either side of the aisle.
  
  
• In addition to the looming climate catastrophe is the very much related looming economic catastrophe. A lot of things are about to get more expensive, and the worse the climate change is, the worse it will be. An early indicator, since this industry has to be in the business of looking 10-30 years down the line, is insurance prices. Indeed, the day may soon arrive that people in the east simply cannot get hurricane insurance, the way people in the west are currently struggling to get fire insurance. Voters are going to be angry when they cannot get their houses and businesses covered, and some of them will have the unfortunate experience of taking that anger to the next level, when they lose their impossible-to-insure properties to a natural disaster. No politician or political party wants to be on the hook for that, if they can avoid it.

Trump can afford to be fixated on his anti-environment crusade, since he does not have to worry about being elected again, nor does he likely need to worry about Earth becoming increasingly uninhabitable 10-20 years from now. But, despite his delusions to the contrary, he is clearly on the unpopular side of this issue. And the harder he flogs it, the more likely it is to hurt his downward-trending approval numbers. (Z)

What We Need Is a Distraction, Part I: Weaponizing the DoJ

We had an e-mail yesterday from reader J.M. in Albany, NY:

I share your opinion that the Trump/Epstein connection and coverup should be a big deal. As far as genuinely having an impact on his base, though, it seems to be fading to the back burner with astonishing quickness, given how explosive it (potentially) is. Honestly, the only media coverage I have been seeing of it for the last 2 weeks has been on your site. Is there some reason you still think this is the exceptional scandal that will topple the core cult support for Dear Leader when all else just seems to wash off him like water on a duck's back?

You can never be sure what, if anything, will pierce the armor. However, there is still much Epstein attention on right-wing media outlets (except Fox). Further, it was to be expected that the story would ebb and flow a bit. We expect it to flow again once Congress is back in session, and once a potential subpoena is a topic of discussion. And, perhaps most instructive, is the fact that the administration is working overtime to create distractions. They would not do that if their feet were not feeling the flames.

Donald Trump's absolute favorite option, when it comes to passing the buck, is to build a scandal around Barack Obama. After all, Trump loathes his predecessor, and believes the base does, too. Further, an Obama "scandal" is the primary thing that won Trump the presidency in the first place. Recall that Trump's transition from private citizen to serious player in the GOP was driven by his embrace of the nonsense about Obama's birth certificate.

To that end, "Attorney General" Pam Bondi has been working overtime to make some hay out of DNI Tulsi Gabbard's claim that Obama committed some sort of crimes related to Russian interference in the 2016 election. Yesterday, Bondi went all-in, and commenced a grand jury investigation into Obama and other members of his administration.

Undoubtedly, this will please Trump, the only audience Bondi cares about. It is also a certainty that Fox will turn this into hours upon hours of programming. Since Gabbard made her initial claim, the entertainers employed by that outlet have aired no fewer than 168 segments dedicated to this "news story." That said, it's a short-term play that smacks of desperation. Trump lives in a fantasy world, at least some of the time, and may well believe that this is going to result in an indictment. We would guess that Bondi, even with as much Kool-Aid as she's consumed, is not similarly deluded. In any case, this is going to go nowhere, and is going to achieve nothing, besides wasting millions of tax dollars. Presumably, Bondi is hoping that the investigation can be quietly concluded and closed, and that there won't be a lot of coverage at that point, with headlines like "DOJ INVESTIGATION FINDS NOTHING."

There was also a bonus investigation announced yesterday, one that is arguably even thinner than the Obama-Russia investigation. The Office of Special Counsel has said it is going to take a long look at former special counsel Jack Smith, who was responsible for prosecuting the various crimes that Trump was charged with committing.

It was inevitable that Smith would be put under the microscope eventually, since he is the white person Trump hates the most, and since Trump's underlings do whatever they can to please their Dear Leader. However, the folks at OSC (which is part of the DoJ) have had something like 7 months to think about their options, and to find an angle of attack, and do you know what they came up with? Hatch Act violations.

The Hatch Act, as most readers will recall, prohibits electioneering by federal employees (excluding the president and VP) when they are acting in their official capacity. At this point, readers may be struggling to recall those occasions where Smith appeared at a Harris rally, or gave an anti-Trump speech, or urged people to donate to Act Blue. That is because those occasions do not exist. Smith was exceedingly professional/reticent, and his only remarks about Trump (or anyone else) came when he (Smith) was in court, acting as prosecutor.

That's right, the OSC is trying to sell the notion that going before a judge and saying "We think Trump stole classified documents" counts as electioneering. That is a legal theory so absurd that it should even cause someone like Judge Aileen Cannon to roll their eyes. It is also worth noting that Hatch Act violations are a civil, and not criminal, matter. They can be punished with a suspension (too late, Smith already left government employ), or with termination (again, too late), or a reprimand (who cares), or a fine... of $1,000.

Again, it smacks of desperation. That said, it is clear that someone in the Trump administration is thinking strategically, at least a bit. If the administration were to pursue criminal charges, or even a defamation case, it would open the door for Smith to introduce, in open court, some of the things he turned up over the course of his investigation. This is the last thing Trump wants. So, the OSC is pursuing a really stupid cause of action, but one not likely to blow up in the President's face. One has to assume that this plan, having grabbed a few headlines that will please Trump and maybe distract the base a little bit, will also quietly be dropped. (Z)

What We Need Is a Distraction, Part II: Strictly Ballroom

Donald Trump was first elected president about 9 years ago. It seems that, since that time, he has spent much mental energy worrying about where to hold his balls. And now, he has announced his solution: His administration will add an 80,000-square-foot ballroom to the White House, located adjacent to the East Wing.

The response to Trump's announcement was... tepid, at best. The White House is, of course, an iconic structure, and every time a change to the design has been implemented (the addition of the West and East wings, the construction of the Truman portico, etc.), there was blowback just because some people don't like change. Undoubtedly, that is part of the dynamic here, especially since an addition that large would be a pretty big change to the overall look of the building.

That said, we think there are several, more substantive, reasons to look askance at that plan. The first of those, of course, is the grift. When reporters asked how the projected $200 million cost would be covered, Trump administration officials said that it would be paid for by Trump himself and "other patriot donors." When Trump himself was asked if that included foreign donors, he claimed he had not thought about that, and that "You have very strong restrictions. And we go by the restrictions."

Is there any piece of this that is actually believable? To start, Trump never, ever pays for anything out of his own pocket. It's going to be all donor money. And the fact that he's being vague on who those "patriot donors" are, and that it's not credible that he hasn't even thought about foreign donors, then one has to assume that the money is coming from (mostly) foreign people and entities that Trump does not want to announce publicly. The Saudi government is the obvious candidate, though the Qatari government, with its penchant for giving out "free" airplanes, is not far behind.

That moves us to a second, very related, concern, namely that Trump is about to run a version of the Tweed Courthouse scam. About 150 years ago, the very Trump-like urban boss William Magear Tweed persuaded his fellow New York City aldermen that they should allocate $500,000 to build a new courthouse for NYC, to be completed in 6 months. Tweed knew that, once construction begins, it's pretty unusual to reverse course. Naturally, when the 6 months were up, and the $500,000 was all spent, the Courthouse somehow wasn't completed. So, there was another round of funding from the city, and then another, and then another, and then another, and so forth. By the time the project was complete, 12 years had elapsed and $10 million had been spent.

Building an 80,000-square-foot addition to any building is no small task. And when it's the White House, the task gets many orders of magnitude bigger, because the structure has to be extra safe and extra secure (i.e., able to withstand fire, able to withstand a terrorist attack, etc.). It is easy to imagine 12-18 months of planning and pre-construction, followed by an announcement that it turns out $200 million wasn't enough, and another $200 million will be wanted. Maybe there will be two or three such announcements. Meanwhile, Trump has revealed no details about how the "donations" will be held, or who will have control of the money. And obviously, he has made no commitment whatsoever in terms of what will happen if the edifice is only partly complete when he leaves office. It is very much within the realm of possibility that he will find a way to build, say, $20 million worth of structure, pocket multiple hundreds of millions of donations for himself, and leave the next administration on the hook to complete the "Trump Ballroom."

We will also point out one other thing. Elon Musk and his DOGEys cut all kinds of funding from all kinds of places, including aid for food for starving children. It makes a very clear statement of Trump's priorities if he can find $200 million or more for a place to put his balls, but no money for starving kids.

As readers can see from the headline, we have placed this story in the "distractions" basket. We're not as sure of that categorization here as we are with the DoJ stuff (100% certain). But we nonetheless think it is considerably more likely than not that this is one of those bits of information that was going to be released to the world sometime soon, and that a weekend with bad jobs numbers, and in the midst of Epstein Mobilier, was as good a time as any. Meanwhile, we are 100% certain that there is a grifty angle here. The only question is when and if someone will uncover what exactly the scam is. (Z)

Never Forget: Russian Roulette

Today, a memory from M.B.T. in Bay Village, OH:

This is a story our Dad told us late in life. I didn't have a recorder, but after he told us, I went off and jotted down a few notes. This is how he told it in his own words as best I can recall:

After the war, when I was stationed in Japan, my job was to fly fighter escort for [an unpronounceable Japanese name that I cannot remember], who commuted from where he was in prison to his trial for war crimes. He'd leave in a PBY and we'd meet up and then hang on the propeller with full flaps to fly slow enough to stay with him. It was hard flying [a P-51] that slowly.

One day, some Russian fighters buzzed by us, which they weren't supposed to do because it was our air space and they weren't allowed. Back at the base, I confronted one of the Russians there [probably some sort of liaison?], a captain or a major, I forget, but he outranked me. He knew all about it. I told him if his people did it again, I'd shoot 'em down. He just laughed at me.

The next day, as we were getting ready to take off, I made sure they saw my flight crew loading my guns. Then I had them shoot off a few test rounds, the way we did it during the war. Remember, the war's over and this is the Occupation and we're not supposed to have any need for loaded guns anymore. I did it on my own and didn't get permission, but I wanted to show those Russian sons-of-bitches I meant business.

That Russian officer was madder'n hell, but he must have sent word because they stayed out of our air space from that day on.

They launched a formal protest about the insult and the threat I'd made to them and it made its way through the hierarchy of the Air Corps. I was told it eventually landed on George Marshall's desk. I'm not sure it did, but it might have. So here's this 22-year-old second lieutenant causing an international incident with our Russian allies.

In a few days, I was punished by being relieved of my duties for 2 weeks. What they did was send me and my CO on a furlough. I'm sure they told the Russians I'd been thoroughly disciplined, but the CO thought it was great and we had a grand time in Tokyo and everybody thought I was really something. It made me a hero for a while.

(Dad, would you have really shot him down?)

I don't know, maybe.

The reason I believe this story is because he never bragged about anything he did. My brother and I had to get him to talk. He wouldn't do it on his own.

He never shot down any Japanese because his assignment overseas was delayed by 6 months from pneumonia, a disease he contracted several times more during my childhood and adolescence. He didn't ship out with his unit from flight training, which might have saved his life. Several of the cadets he'd trained with were shot down in combat, but the air war was pretty much over by the time he went. He never saw a Japanese plane in the air the whole time he was in the Pacific. All he did was "strafe and bomb the jungle in places that looked like any other part of the jungle."

Once, he told us, he was dropping bombs from a P-38 and hit an ammo dump, but didn't even know it. His flight leader saw it, but Dad was "too busy pulling up" to notice. It was just a lucky accident as far as he was concerned, and the closest he ever came to doing anything that could be called active wartime combat. As far as he knows, nobody ever fired a shot at him. So that's why I believe the Russian story.

Besides the pneumonia, Dad credited the two atomic bombs with helping save his life. He and his group were training for the invasion of the Japanese mainland when the bombs were dropped and the Japanese surrendered.

He always admired the Japanese because of the way they picked themselves up and rebuilt their country after the war. He didn't think very highly of the Russians, however.

Thanks, M.B.T. (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger