Main page    Jul. 01

Senate map
Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu

New polls:  
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)

The Big, Beautiful Budget Bill Beat Goes On

Yesterday, the Senate spent all day holding a vote-a-rama on various amendments to the Donald Trump budget bill, and also engaging in horse trading and sausage making. They will be back at it today.

There was a lot of coverage of the various deals being struck. For example, it appears that the vote of Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has been secured via a provision that will allow for up to $50,000 in deductions for whaling-related expenses, up from the current (paltry) $10,000. This will surely please Captain Ahab; maybe he'll finally have enough cash to get that white whale he's been after.

There is also a lot of grousing from budget hawks in the House, who say that the bill currently under construction in the Senate is unacceptable to them, and they just won't be able to vote for it. We will believe that when we see it.

In any event, as we have written many times, the information that's floating around right now is not especially useful, because anything and everything could change by the time the final bill is passed. There is one thing that is not likely to change, however, and that is how voters feel about the bill. Someone who is unhappy about $900 billion in cuts to Medicaid is not likely to feel better if it ends up as only $600 billion in cuts. And someone who doesn't think millionaires and billionaires should see their household income increase by 4% thanks to tax cuts is not likely to be pacified if it turns out to be only 2.5%.

This being the case, we thought the most useful thing we could do when it comes to the budget—i.e., the dominant news story of the day yesterday—is take a look at the polling. In short, it's not good for the Republicans. Here's a rundown of all the budget-related polls we could find that were taken since the Senate got to work on May 22:

Pollster Rep. App. Rep. Dis. Rep. Net Ind. App. Ind. Dis. Ind. Net Dem. App. Dem. Dis. Dem. Net Tot. App. Tot. Dis. Tot. Net
Quinnipiac 67% 10% +57% 20% 57% -37% 2% 89% -87% 27% 53% -26%
Washington Post/Ipsos 49% 13% +36% 17% 40% -23% 6% 74% -68% 23% 42% -19%
KFF 61% 36% +25% 27% 71% -44% 13% 85% -72% 35% 64% -29%
Pew Research 56% 19% +37% N/A N/A N/A 5% 80% -75% 29% 49% -20%
Fox 73% 23% +50% 22% 73% -51% 10% 89% -79% 38% 59% -21%

There's some variance between numbers, based primarily on how the questions were asked. However, there are two themes that come through loud and clear. First, Democrats hate the bill much more than Republicans like it. If the bill is going to get people to the polls during the midterms, those people are going to be disproportionately Democrats. Second, independents definitely do not like the bill. These folks, of course, are the swing voters. And if swing voters decide to punish the members of Congress for the bill (since, after all, Trump will not be on the ballot), that could affect dozens of House races, and a number of Senate races.

That said, we would not be doing our job if we did not note that there are many bills that are unpopular (or somewhat unpopular) while the sausage is being made, but that get more popular once the bill is a done deal. This was the case with the Social Security Act, it was the case with the Civil Rights Act, it was the case with the Affordable Care Act, and it was the case with dozens of other pieces of legislation. So, it could happen that by the time the elections roll around next year, the numbers here won't be so grim for the GOP.

However, we doubt it. All of the above bills (not to mention many others that became more popular over time) actually helped a lot of people. When a person's life improves due to legislation, that can take some of the frost off their opinion. But we struggle to come up with a plausible theory as to how the big, beautiful budget bill will improve the lives of sizable numbers of people who currently oppose the bill. We suppose that if the bill unleashes the massive wave of prosperity that Republicans promise it will, then that might win some converts. But do you actually think that prosperity will happen? Yeah, neither do we.

There are also a couple of other objections to "but the bill might get more popular!" First, partisanship is much higher right now than in most other historical eras. The Democrats who hate the bill also hate Trump, and it's hard to imagine that ANY level of prosperity would be enough to change that. Second, the timeline on which opinions evolve tends to be a long one. It took years for the SSA to become really popular, or for the CRA to achieve wide acceptance. It took more than a decade for the ACA to have broad support among Americans. Assuming the Republicans pass the BBB sometime this month, they'll have less than 18 months to try to improve public opinion of the bill. And that will be while Democrats are screaming to the heavens about the evils of the legislation.

In short, we're not seeing a viable path by which the BBB is getting better numbers in November 2026 than it's getting right now. On the other hand, we can absolutely see a path by which the numbers get worse. If you look at the polls above, you can see that every one of them recorded some sizable number of respondents who said "No opinion" or "I don't know." If, in a few months, a person (or their friends/relatives) were to lose their health insurance, or if their kids (or their friends' kids or their relatives' kids) all of a sudden weren't getting SNAP assistance, or if the economy were to enter into a full-blown recession, a lot of those "No opinion" or "I don't know" folks are suddenly going to have an opinion and are suddenly going to know. And the conclusions they reach are not likely to be favorable to the red team.

In short, our guess would have been that the Republicans are playing with fire here. And now, the numbers would seem to back that up. Also recall that the last big, beautiful budget bill the Republicans passed with Trump in the White House was in 2017. And in 2018, the GOP did gain two seats in the Senate, but they lost a net of 41 seats in the House, along with a net of 7 governorships. So, there is a track record here in addition to the polling. (Z)

Another Supreme Court Term Comes to an End

The good news is this Supreme Court term is over. And while the conservative majority further eroded individual rights, empowered religious groups, and expanded executive power, they did not take a hatchet to agency decisions or government structure/authority in the way they did last term.

The real bad news from the Court, however, is the way they have expanded their own power by inserting itself at earlier stages of litigation through, among other things, greater use of the not-so-emergency docket; signaling to certain groups that they will receive more favorable treatment at the Court regardless of the merits of their cases; creating barriers for disfavored groups to get in the courthouse door; kneecapping district courts' ability to use its equity powers regardless of the facts of any particular case; and, worst of all, creating a legal landscape where only six justices know what the outcome will be on any given issue. It's an "I'll know it when I see it" approach from a results-driven Supreme Court, which is generating arbitrary and inconsistent rulings further damaging the public's confidence in the Court, justice and the promise of the fair and unbiased application of the law. They're making law by pretending that they're playing it straight.

Let's start with the less bad decisions from this term and work our way toward the really bad:

Government Structure

The Court largely declined to undercut agency authority even further this term, with one notable exception—the EPA:

Kennedy v. Braidwood Mgmt.: the Court rejected a challenge from certain businesses and individuals to the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which recommends preventive services that must be covered by insurance under the Affordable Care Act. One of those services is HIV prevention medication, which the plaintiffs objected to on religious grounds, claiming that the drug "encourages homosexual behavior... and sexual activity outside of marriage..." The Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and held that the task force's structure is constitutional because members can be removed at will and are appointed and supervised by the HHS secretary, so that they are "inferior" officers as opposed to "principal" officers. As such the Constitution does not require them to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

FCC v. Consumer's Research: The Court held that the FCC did not violate the non-delegation doctrine when it contracted with a private entity to provide advice on administering a program to provide free or low-cost phone and Internet to low-income households. The Court declined an invitation to expand the non-delegation doctrine and instead found that Congress had given sufficient guidance and standards to the FCC to operate the program. (This was one of the decisions that got the punditry's hopes up for a more collegial and normal SCOTUS term—oops.)

FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments: The Court reversed the Fifth Circuit and held that the FDA's decision to deny application to market new e-cigarette products was not arbitrary and capricious.

NRC v. Texas: Non-parties to a Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing proceeding are not entitled to judicial review of the licensing decision.

Diamond Energy v. EPA: The Court held that fuel producers have standing, or a legal right to sue, to challenge the EPA's approval of California's regulation requiring auto manufacturers to produce more fuel-efficient vehicles. The Court found that the fuel producers' alleged injuries could be redressed by a favorable ruling. (Why the same isn't true in the NRC case above, the Court doesn't say.)

Rights of Individuals

Martin v. U.S.: One of the bright spots this term—the Court held that the Martin family could continue their suit against the federal government for raiding their house by mistake because the agent failed to verify the address. The FBI warrant was for a different house a few blocks away. The father was forcibly dragged out of a closet and handcuffed while the mother and young son watched. An agent saw a piece of mail and realized they had the wrong address. They left abruptly without saying anything, leaving the traumatized family behind. The lower courts had dismissed the suit.

Rights of Religious and Minority Groups

U.S. v. Skrmetti: Tennessee bans hormone therapy and puberty blockers for transgender teens. Plaintiffs brought suit under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing that the law discriminates on the basis of sex because it only applies to transgender teens and so must be subject to strict scrutiny. The Court disagreed and held that the law does not classify by sex but by age and the use of the medication, and so is only subject to the lower standard of rational basis. In other words, the law survives if Tennessee can show that it's rationally related to a legitimate government interest, which is typically a very easy standard to satisfy. The Court held that the democratic process is sufficient to address the plaintiffs' concerns.

Medina v. Planned Parenthood: South Carolina, which receives federal funds for Medicaid, decided to cut off Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood even though they provide services to Medicaid-eligible patients. Planned Parenthood sued, and the Court held that it does not have standing to bring such a suit. Importantly, the Court did not address the merits as to whether a state can withdraw funds from a specific provider. But the Court closed the courthouse door to private individuals looking to enforce the law in federal court, noting that there are other avenues for plaintiffs to challenge this action: a suit in state court or through an administrative proceeding.

Mahmoud v. Taylor: To our thinking, this is the biggie. First, allow us to indulge in some brief editorializing: Chief Justice John Roberts would have been well-served by assigning this decision to anyone other than Associate Justice Samuel Alito. He is by far the most bigoted and overtly and unapologetically partisan justice on the Court (though Clarence Thomas is a close second). He is the least credible justice on this subject as he makes his contempt for LGBTQ persons clear every chance he gets.

His opinion is full of gross generalizations, unsupported conclusions, assumptions without evidence and misstatements of the facts. He distorts the facts in his opinion to cast teachers and storybooks about fairytales, weddings and common identity crises in the most sinister light possible. But he struggles to turn the innocuous into the insidious. Alito cites this quote as evidence of a plot to indoctrinate children with immoral messages: "The book relates that 'on the two men's wedding day, the air filled with cheer and laughter, for the prince and his shining knight would live happily ever after.'" Or this: "'Bobby and Jamie love each other,' said Mummy. 'When grown-up people love each other that much, sometimes they get married.'" The horror, the horror!

To put this case into context, the legal landscape around public school curricula and conflicts with religious adherents was fairly well-settled. If a law or policy is generally applicable and otherwise valid, an individual is not excused from compliance based on one's religious beliefs. Incidental burdens on religion do not violate the First Amendment and exposure to offensive ideas and messages does not implicate the Free Exercise clause.

But Alito and the majority sidestepped all of that to greatly expand on a case called Yoder, which held that Amish parents were not subject to a law compelling high school attendance. Once Alito had settled on a sufficiently negative narrative, he then searched to identify the violation that "substantially interferes with the religious development of [the] children." After reading and re-reading this decision—for which (L) should be treated to multiple spa days—the asserted violation is a moving target. Alito, at times in the opinion, says that it's the Board's guidance regarding the storybooks that is coercive, even though that guidance is only optional for teachers. At other times it's the books themselves that carry a "normative" message that is at odds with the parents' opposing religious views and that teachers who read these books are conveying a moral message that impressionable children are especially susceptible to. Consider Alito's conclusion about the message of Uncle Bobby's Wedding that he decides impedes parents' religious freedom if children are exposed to it: "It is significant that this book does not simply refer to same-sex marriage as an existing practice. Instead, it presents acceptance of same-sex marriage as a perspective that should be celebrated." Apparently, conveying a "perspective" that differs from some students' religious views violates the First Amendment now.

In these situations, sometimes it's helpful to go from the bottom to the top (ooh, Alito would probably be offended by that phrasing...) When one does that, the breadth of this opinion is clearer. The Court holds that "the Board's introduction of the 'LGBTQ+-inclusive' storybooks, along with its decision to withhold opt outs, places an unconstitutional burden on the parents' rights to the free exercise of their religion" and that the parents are entitled to a preliminary injunction. "Specifically, until all appellate review in this case is completed, the Board should be ordered to notify them in advance whenever one of the books in question or any other similar book is to be used in any way and to allow them to have their children excused from that instruction." (emphasis added)

The Court doesn't identify or define what would constitute "any other similar book." Does a book on evolution qualify? Or, as Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent wonders, what about books on women's history that showcase a woman's accomplishments outside of marriage? The dissent helpfully suggests that the Court has created a new test called the "very real threats" test. Like obscenity, the Court "will know it when it sees it." The rest of us just have to guess.

Setting aside the obvious subjectivity of what constitutes a moral or immoral message and whether a certain activity necessarily imposes those messages on kids, this new test that Alito sets out is an ever-moving target that no one will know how to hit. And we suspect that ambiguity is very much by design. And though this case is at the preliminary injunction stage and only applies to these parent plaintiffs in the Maryland school district, it is hard to see how this doesn't ripple out nationwide. The Court suggests that individual lessons or even aspects of a lesson are sufficient to trigger an opt-out requirement if a potentially offensive message is conveyed. Sotomayor is right that the end result, as it is with any overly broad and vague law, will be to chill any lessons, discussions or books that include LGBTQ characters or story lines. Every book will feature only straight characters and stereotypical gender roles. How soon before we have a lawsuit claiming a violation of the establishment clause? Isn't the government endorsing religion if every instruction must adhere to someone's religious beliefs? The majority doesn't concern itself with that minor detail.

Finally, it's important to note that the preliminary injunction only applies to these parents and not non-parties, as the Supreme Court has just held that "universal" injunctions are not permitted. So, unless other parents want to bring a class action lawsuit, the school district can minimize the disruption and expense of this injunction by limiting any opt-outs to the plaintiffs only.

That's it for this term, though the John Roberts World Tour will be back on the first Monday in October (plus, there will be special appearances courtesy of the shadow docket). (L)

Pride Month, Part I: Elphaba, not Glinda

Pride Month came to an end yesterday, of course. We have a piece in the on-deck circle about how Pride Month got (aggressively) tied up in the culture wars. Today, however, we want to yield the floor to reader P.W. in Valley Village, CA, for an accounting of events on the ground (and a few other insights). Take it away, P.W.:

Official Electoral-Vote LGBTQ+ Pride correspondent checking in with a report from Pride 2025 to finish off the month. Here's the latest, starting off with a trip back to 1970 for a modicum of context.

To mark the first anniversary of the 1969 Stonewall Riot in NYC, events were planned and did take place in seven U.S. cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, and three others, but ironically, not San Francisco). Given the political climate of the time, obtaining any official civic blessing from these cities was an impossibility. So they were planned as sidewalk protest marches, which didn't require permission or permits. With a single prescient exception.

Unlike the other cities, the three local activists (Bob Humphries, Morris Kight, and Troy Perry—all three of whom I know!) organizing the Los Angeles event wanted theirs to be a celebration—a parade rather than a march. For that, there was no alternative but to apply to the city for a parade permit. Hoping to slip the reason for the parade past Los Angeles city officials, it was "Christopher Street West" that applied for the parade permit (Christopher Street being the NYC street where the Stonewall Inn was located). Unfortunately, the ruse was discovered and the permit was denied, resulting in a pitched legal battle. Eventually, the local ACLU chapter filed a lawsuit that resulted in forcing the City of Los Angeles to issue the permit—on a Friday afternoon, for a parade planned for Sunday. The parade happened, with floats and marchers and 30,000 spectators taking to Hollywood Boulevard a scant two days later.

And this L.A. parade, uniquely among these first seven Pride events, was part Mardi Gras celebration ("We're here! YIPPEE!!!") and part protest ("We're here! Take THAT!!!"). This has been true of every subsequent L.A. Pride celebration. That said, the parade does adapt depending on the needs of the year in which it takes place. Participants heavily protest in the years of the Briggs Initiative, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and Proposition 8, etc., and are more celebratory during the intervening years, with full expectation that the celebration/protest ratio and the issues involved will change from year to year.

So, then, what about 2025?

This year's LA LGBTQ+ Pride parade was similar to those of recent years. Community groups marching down the street. Local bars and businesses promoting themselves, with a small number of national concerns doing the same. And, as in previous years, lots and lots of employee affinity groups from major corporate entities, again with the transgender pride colors in prominent display.

But the transgender display and transgender parade participation had a noticeably different character from what marched down Hollywood Boulevard in 2023 and before. The earlier events emphasized trans protest. But in 2024, and again this year (somewhat surprisingly), the emphasis was on transgender celebration. Protest from that community was relatively muted.

Instead, the big change this year showed up in an unexpected place, namely the character of how elected officials chose to present themselves. Elected officials riding in the back of a convertible have been a fixture of Pride parades for many decades, but this year a number of them dramatically upped their game, replacing their convertibles with floats. Big floats. Blaring music floats. Crawling with people floats. "I'M HERE!!!" floats. Allowing these elected to use the protest element of the Pride parade to express their anger about what's going on with the national government in a loud and visible way.

The protest aspect also provided fertile ground for yet another burning issue to be expressed, namely anger against ICE, and the war that the federal government has declared against our local immigrant communities. Marching group after marching group carried signs and banners like "ICE Out Now!" and "Immigrants are the lifeblood of our communities." The Mexican Pride flag, carried by marching contingent after marching contingent, was a visible presence from the beginning of the parade right through to the end. In other words, the outrage against ICE was widespread and obvious—a broadly felt sentiment. Good.

There could be no doubt that participants were reacting to what's happening now at the hands of the Trump administration. The demonization of our transgender countrymen, the war being waged against our immigrant communities, the destruction of USAID, and the attacks on our institutions of higher learning. People are angry. REALLY angry. And I would suggest the history of marriage equality provides a template for what's likely to come once this insanity finally ends.

The battle for marriage equality in the U.S. started off with just a few isolated wins (the first in Massachusetts in 2004), followed by a seemingly endless string of losses: 32 ballot initiatives going before the voters, each of which produced the same result: Marriage equality being soundly defeated, with the marriage equality proponents then tucking their tails between their legs and slinking off into the corner to lick their wounds. That is, until ballot initiative number 33: California's Proposition 8.

When Prop 8 was approved by the voters, thus banning gay marriage in California, what resulted, instead of the tail-between-the-legs pattern of the previous 32 defeats, was unbridled anger. I was at the big official Prop 8 Election Night party in Los Angeles and witnessed the turn-to-boil firsthand. The anger resulted in massive demonstrations in Salt Lake City in front of the Mormon Temple, starting that night, followed by protest after protest erupting all over the state, the country, and the world in the ensuing days and weeks. This led to rapid-fire positive developments, one of which was the odd couple of Ted Olsen and David Boies teaming up to fight the successful legal battle all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn Prop 8.

So... 32 marriage equality ballot initiative losses—nothing. The 33rd marriage equality ballot initiative loss—everything. The difference? For the first 32, nothing was taken away. Just a reaffirmation of the status quo. But for number 33, marriage equality had been the law in California for 5 months, and then it was taken away. That made all the difference, resulting in the slingshot forward to have marriage equality become the law of the land just a few years later.

So... circling back to what's happening now. Things are being taken away by the Trump administration at a blinding rate, and people are angry. Really angry. Prop 8-level angry. While that which can be done to fight back now is limited, the battles that can be fought are being fought. That's good. But alongside this, we're lying in wait. For what needs to be waged is an asymmetric defense worthy of Elphaba. Elphaba? Say what? Read on.

In the final scene of Wicked (2024), (the "good" witch) Glinda talks at length, imploring (the "bad" witch) Elphaba to go and talk to the Wizard and Madame Morrible. "Talk to them. It'll be okay. I'm sure something can be worked out." And, indeed, this is what Glinda would do. Because for Glinda, the system works for her. And she's extremely adept at bending the system to her will. Subterfuge is one of the tools in her toolkit, and she uses it directly on the system to get what she wants.

Elphaba, however, works from an entirely different playbook, as the system is stacked completely against her. This means the only way she can get what she wants is to do so by circumventing the system and working around it. Bending it when she can, and breaking it when she can't. Elphaba has had to develop the instincts to recognize when the system can't be trusted, and then do what she needs to do to get to her end goal.

And that's where we are today. With the Trump-led federal government running roughshod over democratic norms and doing active damage as far as the eye can see. Whatever the system has been in the past, it no longer is. The system itself has become the enemy.

For those of our countrymen for whom the system has worked (the Glindas of the world), this is new territory. The skills to cope and fight back have to be learned. But for the marginalized communities (the Elphabas)... been there, done that, here we go again. The hard-won skills are honed and ready to deploy. So gentle readers, the path forward is this: Look to the marginalized communities for inspiration and the skills needed to prepare for the coming slingshot forward. For once the insanity of the Trump administration has finally climaxed, akin to what happened with Prop 8, the anger for what has been taken away will fuel a slingshot forward to get it all back... and more. So, prepare. Something that every single one of us can do. And we must. Some in small ways. Others in large. All important. Prepare.

Be Elphaba, not Glinda—prepare for the slingshot forward.

Thanks, P.W! We'll have the piece on the politics of Pride tomorrow.

Candidate News: Governors

It's been a few weeks since we did this, which means there's a bit of a backlog of news about governors' races that we think is worth mentioning. So, buckle up:

That's enough for now. We'll do the N-Z states tomorrow, and then move on to news about candidates for federal office after that. Oh, and as always, we welcome comments and tips about state and local races at comments@electoral-vote.com. We can't be 100% on top of developments in every place, all by ourselves. (Z)

Never Forget: Dr. Rancher

This posting is pushing up against 10,000 words (again!), so we're going with a reminiscence today that's on the shorter side, from reader J.W.H. in Somerville, NJ:

Over the weekend, J.C. in Thủ Dầu Một, Bình Dương asked a question about the best era for a time-traveling woman to visit. And, as part of your answer, you suggested the U.S. from 1941-45, noting: "Women were badly needed to keep the industrial economy going, and so enjoyed freedoms and status, not to mention wages, that would have been unthinkable 10 years earlier."

This took me back to my aunt. She was the first female resident at Lenox Hill Hospital (or at least, that's what my family said), and the next year they took on another female resident, who became her best friend and partner for the rest of their lives.

During the era you named, they had successful medical practices. When the male doctors came back from the war, and they found themselves being pushed aside, they hung up their diplomas and bought a dairy farm in upstate New York. After about a decade, when the milk companies said they would no longer come down to the barn to get the milk, and they needed to bring it up to the road, they decided to sell off the herd. For the rest of their lives, they concentrated on their artwork, even sometimes allowing a fellow artist to live in a van on their 144-acre property. Their area was a bit of an artists' community—they lived down the road from Jose de Creeft, who was responsible for the "Alice in Wonderland" sculpture in Central Park my wife used to climb on as a little girl growing up in the city.

For all occasions, I would receive cards with scribbled drawings on them, and loved visiting their farm. They were warm and welcoming women, and definitely lived life on their own terms!

Thanks, J.W.H. (Z)


Previous | Next

Main page for smartphones