Electoral-vote.com

Military Theater, Part I: California

We have surely used the word "fascist" and its variants more times since January 20 of this year than in all of the 20 years prior to that. We do not like doing this, but you know what they say about what it means when something walks like a duck and talks like a duck.

One thing that is absolutely critical to fascists (and, in fact, to authoritarians of all stripes) is the military. First, because glorifying the military (and, along with that, the purifying power of violence) is a core element of fascist thinking.

Second, because the leader draws "strength" (or, at least, the illusion of strength) through association with the troops he commands (we use "he" here because we cannot think of any woman leader in the last two centuries who might properly be called an authoritarian, although Aung San Suu Kyi certainly gave it the old college try). Anyhow, there is a reason that authoritarian leaders—Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Ghadafi, Idi Amin, Francisco Franco, the Kim family of North Korea, etc.—generally wear some sort of military (or pseudo-military) costume.

Third, because when push comes to shove, it will be the military (or, sometimes, paramilitary) forces that impose the leader's will.

It is true that Donald Trump is not running around in a military uniform—at least, not yet. But, in other ways, he's getting uncomfortably close to creating the kind of relationship with the military that fascists and other authoritarians try to create. And, as readers can undoubtedly tell from the headlines, we are going to have three items in a row, all of them involving news from this week, that discuss that general theme. And this one's going to be extra long, so much so that we're going to divide it into sections (again). So, buckle up.

A Short History Lesson

Let us talk a little bit about the Watts Riots of 1965, a subject that has become uncomfortably salient in the last week or so. Some readers will probably know that incident began with a traffic stop, as a couple of California Highway Patrol (CHP) officers pulled over a car with three Black men in it and accused the driver of being drunk. The broader context in which this happened included the burgeoning Vietnam War (and associated protests), the emergence of Black Power thinking and, in California, a really ugly debate over Proposition 14, by which white California homeowners hoped to re-assert their right to discriminate in home sales, despite the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 said they couldn't do that anymore.

All of these things served to prime the pump for a confrontation (it did not help that the traffic stop happened on August 11, a hot summer day—urban unrest almost always takes place when the temperature is not only metaphorically high, but also literally high). Anyhow, during the traffic stop, things were initially calm. However, a crowd of Black onlookers began to gather around the pulled-over car. That led the CHP officers to call for backup. Tempers flared, words were exchanged, someone threw a punch, the violence quickly spread, and the Watts Riots were underway. They lasted for about 5 days.

Readers will note that we did not say WHO threw that first punch. And most folks can probably intuit why we did not include that information: It's unknown. All of the Black witnesses on the scene said that the CHP turned to violence first. All of the CHP officers on the scene said that Black people in the crowd turned to violence first. There's no visual evidence, and no way to determine who is telling the truth (and, indeed, both sides could be telling the truth if punches were thrown about the same time).

Documenting the past is like that; there are always contradictions in the accounts of witnesses, often very big ones. The two kinds of events where this problem is worst are almost certainly riots and battles. That is because both of those things tend to be highly decentralized, with a lot of different stuff going on all at once, which means a lot of chaos, and with people acting very much based on emotion. The biggest unknown about the Watts Riots is "Who threw the first punch?" but there are all kinds of other questions that have no clear answer. For example, did police officers participate in looting? Exactly how many people were killed due to the rioting? Why were some stores burned down, and others left untouched? Was the driver pulled over by the CHP actually drunk?

With nearly 60 years gone by, we will never know the answers to these questions or many, many others. As with the first punch example, the witnesses who might provide answers can have agendas that renders their testimony suspect. More common, however, is that witnesses disappear into the ether, and nobody bothers to get their account on the record. If for example, a store is burned down, the motivations of those involved are probably only going to be documented if there happens to be a reporter/historian on the scene asking questions, or if it becomes a criminal/civil matter and the perpetrators end up in court. During a riot (or a battle), with so many different acts going on in so many different places at so many different times, only a small number of incidents actually get put under any sort of microscope. For the rest, the details are quickly lost to the mists of time.

What Really Happened?

We offer that brief account of the Watts Riots to illustrate that these sorts of things are REALLY hard to get a handle on, even with the benefit of time and of hindsight. They are even harder to get a handle on while they are unfolding. This message was sent to us by reader P.Y. in Boca Raton, FL, and while it was meant as a Saturday question, we're going to address it in this item:

You wrote that confrontations at the Los Angeles protests were "largely peaceful" and "relatively few." Yet the local TV media reported at least six cars burned, many windows broken, numerous businesses looted (including Apple and Adidas stores, a pharmacy, and a marijuana dispensary), several police injured, and nearly 400 arrests made, including one for attempted murder when Molotov cocktails were thrown and commercial grade fireworks fired at police. Were there two groups present, one of peaceful protesters and another of criminal elements taking advantage of confusion and chaos? When does a largely peaceful protest become a riot, and when does a riot become an insurrection justifying the use of troops, as on January 6, 2021?

We are going to answer this in three parts. First up, we want to point out that, as with the punch that started the Watts Riots, there are a lot of "unknowns" right now, such that there is no person—not us, not Donald Trump, not L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, not LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell—who could definitively answer P.Y.'s questions right now. We're going to give two quick examples of incidents from the past couple of days where there are many questions, but few clear answers:

ICE Hit and Run: For those who do not know, Boyle Heights is home to one of the oldest Latino communities in Los Angeles (and is perhaps best known as the main site of the 1943 Zoot Suit Riots). On Wednesday, in that part of L.A., ICE agents in a pair of unmarked silver SUVs began trailing a white sedan with a Latino man, woman and child inside. After several miles, the ICE agents rammed the car, and trapped it between their SUVs. They got out, threw a bunch of tear gas canisters, yanked the male driver out of the car, put him in one of the SUVs, and sped off. You can see the footage of the arrest here, if you wish:

The government's side of the story, per Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, is that the man was "a violent rioter who punched a CBP officer." On the other side of the ledger are questions like: (1) If that's true, why did the man have a woman and toddler with him?; (2) Why did the ICE Agents trail him for multiple miles instead of making an immediate arrest?; (3) ICE claims to have a warrant, where is it? and (4) If this is all above-board, why did ICE flee the scene so quickly? The LAPD, which is not prone to overreacting, nor to doing battle with the federal government, has announced it is investigating the incident as a possible assault with a deadly weapon by the federal agents (with the SUVs being the deadly weapon).
Alex Padilla: The ICE-and-run was one of the big stories from Wednesday; this was one of the big stories from yesterday. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem was holding a press conference to address whatever it is that the administration is trying to do in Los Angeles. And Senator Alex Padilla showed up, presumably to: (1) challenge her version of events, (2) ask some pointed questions and (3) get a little publicity. He ended up being manhandled by federal agents on the scene, up to and including being handcuffed. Again, if you wish to see the footage for yourself, it's here:

The portion involving Padilla begins around the 50-second mark.

As with the ICE incident, there are two very different stories being told. The government claims that Padilla did not identify himself, and that they thought he was a threat, so they subdued him. Padilla (and a few witnesses) claim that he clearly identified himself as a U.S. Senator, and that, in any case, he didn't do anything besides try to ask some questions, and didn't do anything that could be interpreted as threatening. For what it is worth, he was not charged with any crime.

The time may come where we get clarity on exactly what happened in each of these two situations. But it might not. The point here is to illustrate that there is much that is unknown or unclear, which means there is much potential right now for spin, exaggeration and outright lies.

Motivations

Now, let's talk a little bit about motivations. Much of this will be obvious, but we want to get it down, because it's important to the overall assessment we're trying to lay out here. We are going to speak briefly about three key players here:

The Right: The agenda of Donald Trump, his underlings, his supporters in the media, and his base is basically clear. At very least, he wants to reiterate that the teeming brown hordes are ruining this country, and that dad gum it, he's gonna do something about that, just like he promised. Further, as we have already written this week, it certainly looks like he's trying to grease the skids for more aggressive use of the National Guard and/or the regular armed forces to impose his will. Both of these goals are served by making the immigrants look as guilty as possible and making the protests look as horrible and violent as possible.
The Left: The agenda of Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA), his underlings, his allies, his supporters in the media, and the Democratic base is equally clear. They want to downplay the situation as much as possible, within reason, which implicitly makes the argument that Trump is a crazypants dictator who is grossly overstepping his authority. Newsom (who wants to be president), Padilla (who may himself run for governor one of these days) and a few others are also interested in boosting their profiles/brand.
The Media: We have written this before, and we will write it again, but it's important to reiterate this here and now. For all the talk of liberal/conservative bias in the media, a considerably more profound bias is towards coverage that is shocking, sensational, titillating, etc. This is particularly true of television media, and it's even more true of social media (if we include those platforms in this category). If the choice is between footage of a bunch of people peacefully protesting, or a bunch of people lighting a car on fire, everyone knows which will win out, 99 times out of 100. And while some outlets (and maybe one or two social media platforms) at least TRY to make sure their material is legit, not all of them do.

And note that social media is particularly pernicious here. The algorithms on every site favor the things that people click on. And the things that people click on are: (1) the stuff that is really sensational; (2) the stuff that affirms their political point of view; and (3) the stuff that fits in both categories.

We'll finish this section with one observation, and that is that two-thirds of the key players are, for different reasons, served by making things in Los Angeles look very bad. So, the deck is stacked, as it were.

The First Draft

Finally, to try to answer the question from P.Y. as much as is possible (under current circumstances), we'll turn to the tools of the historian, used whenever the attempt to make sense of an event is being made (these same tools, by and large, are used in courtrooms, and in other contexts, as well). Remember, the news is the first draft of history.

Patterns of Behavior: If you go on trial for murder, and you've already been convicted of two other murders in the past, the odds are pretty good you're going to get popped for the third. To take another example, if you're in a car wreck that is not your fault, and then a second one a month later that is not your fault, and then a third one a month later that is not your fault, the insurance company is going to take a long look at your policy, and is going to wonder if there's not something you're doing wrong.

We say this as prelude to the observation that a lot of what the Trump administration is doing right now tends to be par for the course for them. For example, Team Trump has now arrested, or nearly arrested, a judge, a U.S. Representative, a mayor and now a U.S. Senator. At a certain point, it ceases to be bad luck, or a misunderstanding, or "he said, she said." It's a pattern of behavior.
Fantastic Tales...: Another pattern that Trump has shown, over and over and over, (as have many of his acolytes), is a willingness to embrace conspiratorial thinking as if it were fact. He is doing that, right now, with the riots, having claimed numerous times now that the protesters are, in fact, paid crisis actors. This is a claim he, and many other right-wingers, have made many times before. And they've offered zero proof, either in the past, or in the current situation. At a certain point, if the boy inaccurately or dishonestly cries wolf too many times, you have to conclude he's a liar.
...And Outright Lies: Trump has not limited himself to conspiratorial thinking (which he, at least, might believe is true). He's also issued forth with things he most certainly knows to be lies. For example, and we noted this previously, he lied about when the National Guard was deployed, and gave them credit they did not deserve for quelling protests. He also lied in claiming that LAPD Chief McDonnell advised that the Guard be deployed. In fact, McDonnell told reporters that the protests were "nowhere near" that level.

What percentage of the administration's narrative has to be false, or conspiratorial, before one dismisses the whole thing?
Words ≠ Actions: Another key aspect of Trump's story—and, indeed, his political program—is that he's going to get rid of the "bad" immigrants, by which he means ~~the brown ones~~ the drug dealers, the gangsters, the criminals, etc.

Consider this message we received from reader J.W. in Los Angeles:
I work across the street from the federal building where ICE was detaining people on Friday, June 6. That building processes applications of immigrants trying to become U.S. Citizens. The court building around the corner is where their cases are heard. These are all people who were doing the right, lawful thing. It is unfathomable, outrageous, and disgusting that ICE would target these locations and the people who were attempting to follow the law and work through a process that is expensive and time consuming to remain in the U.S. legally and to become citizens. The situation in Los Angeles was engineered specifically to target people at a particularly vulnerable location. It did not have to happen and should not have happened.
Similarly, readers who have been following this story closely have undoubtedly heard the name "Home Depot" mentioned a few times. For those who do not know, most Home Depots attract a fairly sizable number of undocumented day laborers, who are willing to do hard and necessary work. Not only do they afford business owners (and others) a lot of flexibility, but they are paid in cash, and do not come with such burdens as the need to pay for workers' compensation insurance. These folks are overwhelmingly law abiding, and play a critical role in keeping the economy humming. They are also a favorite target of ICE these days.

What we are saying, in so many words, is that it could not be clearer that Trump has no real idea how to lay hands on the least desirable immigrants (the gangsters and criminals and drug dealers), so he's targeting the low-hanging fruit, who also just so happen to be the most desirable immigrants. There is virtually no relationship between his words and his administration's actions.
Real Evidence: In the question from P.Y., there is reference to cars being burned, businesses being looted, law enforcement officers being assaulted, etc. Some of this is undoubtedly true, and it's almost certainly the best evidence there is in support of a crackdown. That said, it's hard to tell exactly how many bad acts have taken place, and exactly who the bad actors are. There are certainly people out there who don't have a particular agenda or alignment, and just wait for times of chaos to behave... well, chaotically. Also, if there are a few hundred (or maybe even a thousand) bad actors, that's out of a city of 4 million people (and a metro area of 13 million). That would seem to be a small minority. Even if we limit it to just the protesters, it's STILL a small minority. At the moment, there's a meme/comment/joke going around that goes something like this: "These so-called riots, that justified sending in the National Guard and the Marines, are more tame than what happens after the Lakers win a championship."

There's a fair bit of truth to that. And given that the Lakers win a lot of championships, we do have a fair bit of evidence to work with, here.
Fake Evidence: Meanwhile, a non-inconsequential portion of the "evidence" that shows how bad the rioting is, and that has been put forth on social and broadcast media, is, in fact, fake news. For example, there is a video of three wrecked LAPD cars, one engulfed in flames, making the rounds on eX-Twitter right now. However, the footage is actually from 2020 (the George Floyd protests).

To take another example, this one from TikTok, there is a video that appears to show many hundreds of people marching and telling ICE to get out of town, because "We are Los Angeles!" The first problem here is that the marchers' behavior is entirely civil and peaceful. The second problem is the video is actually from a soccer match on May 18, when the Los Angeles Football Club faced their rival, the L.A. Galaxy. The marchers are actually LAFC fans, which is abundantly clear if you look at the video closely, since nearly everyone is wearing LAFC gear.

There are a bunch of other examples like this (and that's before talking about AI deepfakes). In our experience, if one is telling a true story, or is giving a true accounting of events, one does not need to support one's case with fake evidence.
Eyewitness Accounts: We have already noted that the experience of those Electoral-Vote.com staffers who live in the Los Angeles area (and there are actually three of us) is that the city has not turned into some sort of hellscape. To that, let us add this report we got from reader J.H. in San Luis Obispo, CA:
My husband and I are former long-time residents of LA, and still return there frequently to visit friends and enjoy cultural events in the downtown area. For our most recent trip, we arrived in DTLA about 3:00 p.m. this past Saturday afternoon (having driven through Westlake, which had been the scene of action at a Home Depot the day before). We checked into our hotel at 3rd and Olive. From our 14th floor room we had a clear view to the west, north, and northeast, including City Hall and the Federal Building. We had no view to the south (the Paramount/Compton area, which had been the site of clashes that morning).

We left the hotel for an early dinner just outside Disney Concert Hall, and then walked from there to the Music Center to attend the evening performance at the Mark Taper (Hamlet. My review: Don't bother.) It was apparently about this time that tRump announced he was deploying the National Guard to quell the "insurrection."

About 10:00 p.m. we took the courtesy car back to the hotel. There were no sirens, no sign of any demonstrators, not even the usual helicopter traffic overhead. A lovely, relatively quiet (well, as quiet as DTLA ever gets) evening.

Sunday morning was typical "June Gloom" overcast, but we still had a clear view of the City Hall and Federal Building area. No sign of anything abnormal. No sirens. No helicopters. No street blockages. No hordes of enraged maniacs. (But apparently this is about when the first National Guard troops arrived at the Detention Center.) We checked out of the hotel at noon and headed back over to the Music Center, enjoyed an hour or so of sitting on the Plaza (again, with a good view east toward City Hall, which is maybe 1,000 feet southeast of the Plaza). There were no sirens, no sign of any demonstrators, no sign of any smoke or fire, though we did see one helicopter, which seemed to be just enjoying some Sunday-morning lolly-gagging. We then headed into the Chandler for the matinee performance. (Rigoletto. My review: Quinn Kelsey is dynamite! See it!)

Following the performance we got on the 110 heading north, transitioning to the North 101. It was about 5:30 p.m. or so then. Traffic was as bad, as it normally is on the 110, but we inched along steadily toward the 101 transition. That was the first time we saw anything unusual: a single California Highway Patrol car, flashing its lights, and giving a single almost-polite siren-chirp, to get us to make way for it. Its mission was to block the off-ramp (or transition ramp?). My guess is that this was about when the demonstrators moved out onto the 101, apparently down near the Union Station area. We continued on, got on the 101, and made our way up to West Hills in the Valley to rendezvous with our friends.

That was it. Of course, if we had stayed over into Monday in DTLA, I suspect we would have seen the smoke from the Waymos that got torched Sunday evening. We tend to detach from our newsfeeds on trips like this, so we were not aware at all of the fact that L.A. was being attacked and destroyed by criminal mobs while we were there. Or perhaps we were just lucky enough to have wandered into one of the Alternate Universe DTLAs that exist. If only we could find our way back—we could just hang out there.
Thanks, J.H.!

We will also pass along this video from Jimmy Kimmel Live, for those who are interested:

Kimmel is an Angeleno, too, and his show tapes from a studio located roughly 3 miles northwest of downtown. He also says that the "riots" have been completely overblown, and even shows footage of how calm things are outside the studio (noting that Disney felt perfectly comfortable moving forward with the world premiere of the film Elio). Kimmel is a Democrat, of course, but his first guest for that show was Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is also an Angeleno and who also said the "riots" have been grossly exaggerated.
Outside Views: Further, outsiders have almost universally seen little evidence of serious urban unrest, and much evidence of an administration looking for an excuse to go full authoritarian. We recognize the Canadians are hardly impartial witnesses right now, but we decided to pick this video to share as our example, because it's very polite and yet very biting, and so almost humorous in how very Canadian it is. It's a press conference held by former MP Charlie Angus to talk about the upcoming G7. He begins:
I offer my deep concern, solidarity and prayers with the people of California who are out in the streets unarmed, defending the rule of law against illegal kidnapping and deportation as they're being faced down by the military might of the United States Marines.

We're not talking about creeping fascism here; this is full-on police-state tyranny from the gangster President Donald Trump and this is the man who will soon be crossing our border to attend the G7 meetings in Canada. I have received hundreds of messages of concern and outrage from Canadians that a convicted felon sexual predator and a man who has threatened our nation's sovereignty is being allowed into our country.

I understand Prime Minister Carney's reluctance to escalate the situation with the MAGA president but we have to stop kidding ourselves and we have to be very honest about what we are being asked to engage with. Donald Trump poses a clear threat to American democracy, to Canadian sovereignty and to the international rule of law...
It gets even more pointed from there.

We could provide many more examples from non-American observers, but they are, as we note, almost universally in agreement with Angus. And, for those keeping score at home, we have just given you testimony from a reader, a prominent Democrat, a prominent Republican and a foreigner, and they're all saying pretty much the same thing.
Drawing the Comparison: We'll offer one last observation along these lines. Many people who are in Los Angeles right now (including Z) can remember the L.A. Riots of 1992. Some people who are in Los Angeles right now (not including Z) can remember the Watts Riots. Both of those events had a broad impact, and it was tough to go anywhere in the city without seeing some evidence of the unrest that was unfolding. That's also true of the George Floyd protests, although those weren't L.A.-centric, of course.

The point here is pretty obvious: If the current unrest was anything like those other incidents, the various folks listed above—us, reader J.H. in San Luis Obispo, Jimmy Kimmel, Arnold Schwarzenegger, etc., should be seeing SOME substantial indication. That is not the case.
When Someone Tells You Who They Are, Believe Them: All of this said, sometimes it's not necessary to massage the evidence and to try to read between the lines. Sometimes, a person comes right out with it and tells you what's going on. Kristi Noem, who proves again and again to have no apparent awareness that some things are best left unsaid, came right out with it yesterday and announced exactly what is going on:
The Department of Homeland Security and the officers and the agencies and the departments and the military people that are working on this operation will continue to sustain and increase our operations in this city. We are not going away. We are staying here to liberate this city from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor had placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into the city.
So, the Trump administration does not actually care what happens on the ground, or if normal order is restored, they are/were planning to remain entrenched either way. And the goal, it would seem, is not really about immigrants or urban unrest at all, it's about deposing the democratically elected leadership of the city and the state.

(Z) often tells students that the evidence always points in multiple directions, and it's never a 100% slam dunk for one interpretation or the other. He also tells them that sometimes, the evidence is 50/50, or damn near it, and that's when it gets tough. But what's happening in L.A., at least based on current information, is not one of those 50/50 leaner cases. It's about as overwhelming as it gets that the tale the Trump administration is spinning, aided by the media/social media, is largely dishonest and inaccurate.

We may be wrong, of course—again, it's hard to get a handle on these things, especially while they are still happening. And we may be looking at things through Los Angeles-colored glasses. But we really don't think so.

The Politics

Perhaps it is a bit crass to talk about the politics of this situation while it's still unfolding. Perhaps not; we're not sure. What we do know is that what is happening right now is ALL about politics (and political theater) and has little to do with public safety, making the nation stronger, etc. And we are a politics-centered site. So, we are going to talk about the political dimension of this mess.

To start, The Bulwark's Jonathan Last has a very useful piece up right now headlined "The Protest Dilemma." The main point, which we've already agreed with this week, is that the Democrats (and other anti-Trump forces) have to walk a fine line here; on one side of that line is "we are pushing back against tyranny" and on the other side is "we are abetting lawbreaking, violence, etc." He also offers up these five general points about protesting:

Protest can be powerful tools
Not all protests are productive
We can't know ahead of time which will be which
Sometimes a ruling regime wants a protest movement as a foil
Protests cannot go on indefinitely

Let us make this point in a slightly different way. On three occasions, Gallup polled Americans to gauge whether they think mass protests help or hurt the cause they intend to advance. "Hurt" was the response of 57%, 60% and 74% of respondents, across the three polls, while "Help" was the response of 27%, 27% and 16%. Those polls were not recent, incidentally. They were taken in May of 1961, 1963 and 1964, and were specifically asking about the Civil Rights Movement. Of course, we all know how that turned out, and on which side the judgment of history ultimately fell.

The point is that protesters/the resistance can win the day, but it's tough, and it requires good, disciplined messaging (which was obviously a strength of the Civil Rights Movement). There has already been some polling on the situation in Los Angeles, so we have a sense of where public opinion stands right now. The latest from YouGov reports that 36% of Americans approve of what the Trump administration is doing in Los Angeles right now, while 45% disapprove. A new Washington Post poll has it a little less lopsided, with 41% approving and 44% disapproving. However, much of that is knee-jerk partisanship, with Republicans overwhelmingly approving and Democrats strongly disapproving. Among independents, who are presumably the voters that will swing the elections next year, the Trump administration is 7 points underwater (34%-41%) according to YouGov and 15 points underwater (33%-48%) according to the Post.

Further, the Democrats have been focus-grouping this week, and have learned exactly what you would expect them to learn: If the events of Los Angeles, and immigration policy in general, are framed as "defending unfettered/undocumented immigration and/or lawbreaking," the blue team loses support. If they are framed as "pushing back against overreach and arbitrary and capricious use of government power," the blue gains support. So, the Democrats know what they have to do, and they're even starting out in a better place, public-opinion-wise, than the Civil Rights Movement did.

What's Next?

We very aggressively buried the lede for this item, because that's the structure that just seemed to work best. But now that we're nearing the end, we can take note of the other big news yesterday: Judge Charles Breyer (yes, brother of Stephen) ruled against the administration, and in no uncertain terms, decreeing:

[I]ndividuals' right to protest the government is one of the fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment, and just because some stray bad actors go too far does not wipe out that right for everyone. The idea that protesters can so quickly cross the line between protected conduct and 'rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States' is untenable and dangerous.

He concluded:

[Trump's] actions were illegal—both exceeding the scope of his statutory authority and violating the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He must therefore return control of the California National Guard to the Governor of the State of California forthwith.

The ruling was quickly stayed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which will consider the matter (and presumably issue a ruling) on Tuesday. The Ninth Circuit is pretty liberal, and the Trump administration's case appears to be pretty weak, so this is probably just due diligence, and there's likely another defeat coming down the pike in short order. At that point, we'll learn if the Supreme Court wants to take the case, or if they don't want to touch it with a 10-foot pole.

So, there you have it, as of Thursday night. (Z)

This item appeared on www.electoral-vote.com. Read it Monday through Friday for political and election news, Saturday for answers to reader's questions, and Sunday for letters from readers.

www.electoral-vote.com State polls All Senate candidates