Previous | Next | Senate races | Menu
New polls:
Dem pickups: (None)
GOP pickups: (None)
"Justice" in America, Part I: Trump Threatens to Suspend Habeas Corpus
Over the weekend, Stephen Miller casually mentioned to reporters that the White House is "actively looking at" suspending the writ of habeas corpus for people who are being, or who have been, deported. Shortly thereafter, Donald Trump confirmed that was the case.
Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, the writ of habeas corpus (you have the body) allows someone who is arrested and imprisoned by the government to go before a judge, demand the government justify its actions, and present a defense. If the government cannot fulfill its part of that—demonstrating there is a legitimate charge or charges, backed with legitimate evidence—then the person is free to go. The gentlemen who wrote the Constitution were very careful to explicitly include that right, given that British monarchs were in the bad habit of tossing enemies, real and perceived, into prison, and then leaving them there to rot.
The careful reader might notice that the Trump administration has actually already suspended habeas corpus, at least for those alleged "criminal" immigrants who have been shipped off to El Salvador and other foreign countries. It's not like Kilmar Abrego Garcia is able to get in front of a judge right now and force the government to justify its actions. The declarations from Miller and Trump were presumably made in anticipation of the various court cases that are pending, and also to signal that the administration plans to broaden the number of people it detains without benefit of trial or charges.
The claims, both from Miller and Trump, that it is within the president's power to do this are ignorant, or insane, or maybe both. First, here is the passage in the Constitution that addresses this subject:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
The first problem for the Trump administration is that, despite the President's hot air to the contrary, there is no invasion right now. The second problem is that this particular passage appears in Article I, as part of a list of the powers of Congress. In other words, even if there was a rebellion or invasion, it's Congress that can suspend the writ, not the president.
Historical precedent also supports the conclusion that Miller and Trump are wrong, wrong, wrong. The writ has been suspended four times in American history, each time in a limited geographical area, and for a limited amount of time. Those places and times were: (1) in Baltimore, and a few other places with many Confederates/Confederate sympathizers, during the Civil War; (2) in parts of South Carolina during Reconstruction, in an effort to destroy the KKK; (3) in 1905, during the Philippine War, and (4) in parts of Hawaii, for a few months at the start of World War II.
On three of those four occasions, it was Congress that made the decision. The occasion that the Trump administration is presumably leaning on is the first one, where it was Abraham Lincoln who made the decision. That might seem to bolster Miller's and Trump's claims, but not really. To start, there was an actual rebellion going on when Lincoln did what he did. Second, Congress was out of session when he suspended the writ, and would be for 6 more months. At that time, there was much leeway for presidents to assume Congressional powers, at least until Congress got back to town. Third, when Congress did return to Washington in December of 1861, they sustained Lincoln's decision.
What this means is that Miller and Trump are setting themselves on a potential collision course with the legislature. Needless to say, with this particular legislature, what it might do is anyone's guess. Most members are trying to keep their heads down, and hoping that the White House gets this foolish notion out of its head. For example, Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) was on Meet the Press this weekend, and refused to answer Kristen Welker's questions, saying that this is a distraction, and that he doubts that Congress will have to consider the issue.
That's not to say that all members chose the head-in-the-sand routine, however. For example, Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), who is undoubtedly conservative, but who also has some level of integrity, was also on Meet the Press, and said that due process is the right of all detainees, even non-citizens, and must be followed. He was excoriated by the MAGA faithful for that.
On the other side of the issue was the Senate's biggest dunderhead, Tommy Tuberville (R-AL). In his view, due process
is kind of annoying, because it makes things take so much longer. Further, drawing on his many years as a respected legal
scholar, he
has concluded
that due process is only for white people American citizens, and not for undocumented immigrants.
You know, if a Democratic governor wanted to take a shot at becoming a folk hero, he or she might consider something like this: Find a non-citizen mercenary from a non-extradition country, send them to Washington/Alabama, and have them arrest Tuberville for [mumble, mumble, mumble] and detain him back in that non-extradition country. It would not be an easy operation to pull off, but then again, this kind of thing is what mercenaries do.
We recognize that it is an ugly notion and could turn into an ugly slippery slope, especially since the Trump administration is already threatening to arrest Democratic members of the House. That said, U.S. history is full of examples of people deliberately breaking the law so as to force a court case (i.e., Rosa Parks). And taking Donald Trump's arguments to their logical, if extreme, conclusions may be what it takes for dunderheads like Tuberville to understand why "due process for me, but not for thee" is an untenable position. (Z)
"Justice" in America, Part II: Guess Who's Really the Attorney General
And now for some more news that is disturbing, but not at all surprising. Yesterday, The New York Times had a lengthy story, based on insider accounts, about how the Trump v2.0 Department of Justice works. It's... not good.
The general problem with attorneys general, from Donald Trump's standpoint, is that they tend to be a little too... independent. It is certainly true that Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr, while they were AG, were willing to tote a fair bit of water for Trump. However, they each had their limits, such that Sessions did not protect Trump from the Mueller investigation while Barr did not protect Trump from the 1/6 fallout.
It's now clear that Trump (or someone smarter than him, who is telling him how to play his cards) came up with a solution to this problem. To start, the person who currently bears the title of Attorney General, Pam Bondi, is not actually the AG in any meaningful way. Her role is something more along the lines of... organ grinder's monkey. She is told what to do, and what to say, and is primarily expected to appear on right-wing media platforms and blather.
And if Bondi is the monkey, then who is the organ grinder, the one actually playing the tune? That would be Stephen Miller, who is calling the shots from the White House, despite lacking, you know, a law degree. Or Senate confirmation. Yes, he consults with Trump, but Trump has largely left the DoJ in Miller's hands. After all, there is golf to be played.
This is scary on a number of levels. First, and foremost, of course, is that Miller is an out-and-out fascist. And, as is usually the case with fascists, he pairs that with being an out-and-out racist. Now he gets to back that up with, arguably, the most powerful law enforcement apparatus in the world. Which is how you end up with, for example, people being deported for not actually committing any crimes, and then being held without benefit of charges, or without the right of habeas corpus (see above).
Also scary is that Miller is, quite clearly, a Trump whisperer. Most of the people who move into Trump's orbit, and get some measure of power as a result, tend to overdo it and to aggravate and alienate the Dear Leader. Elon Musk appears to be the latest example of this, but there are countless others who ended up on the outside looking in. By contrast, Miller has been performing his snake-charmer act with Trump for close to a decade, and there's never been the faintest whiff of a story of Trump being aggravated with him. Point is, you could pretty well count on Musk to self-destruct, eventually. You can't count on that with Generalissimo Miller.
With the Times reporting in hand, the original AG choice—Matt Gaetz—makes all the sense in the world. Gaetz was not needed to run the DoJ or to help set policy or to do anything other than appear on Fox and Newsmax and OAN and the Joe Rogan podcast and be a bomb thrower. He's good at that. Heck, it may be the only thing he's good at (at least, the only thing that's legal). When he went down in flames, Bondi was a pretty obvious choice to replace him, since she's also an experienced bomb thrower. And when she was tapped, she was told, in no uncertain terms, exactly what the arrangement would be.
To the extent there's anything to be hopeful about here, we suppose it's this: Because Miller is a fanatic, he tends to overreach. And so, even if Trump has no interest in reining him in, and even if Republicans in Congress have no interest in reining him in, the courts will likely do so. Undoubtedly, Miller will say "Let's just ignore the courts," but the early indications suggest that, even for Trump, that is a bridge too far. (Z)
It Sure Looks Like Trump's Gift Plane Just Won't Fly
Another day, and another round of stories about the "free" jumbo jet that the Qatari royal family wants to, in effect, give to Donald Trump. Remember those kids who are going to have to do without 30 dolls at Christmas? Well, it looks like the President is going to have to prepare for a similar sort of disappointment.
It could not be clearer that the whole scheme is logistically implausible, or impossible. It took Boeing about 3 months to build a standard 747. The new Air Force One planes have been works in progress for a decade. That would seem to suggest that all the special comms and security and the like takes... well, years to execute. We had a comment yesterday from reader E.S. in Maine, who knows about these things; here's another, courtesy of G.W. in Oxnard, CA:
I agree with what E.S. in Maine wrote about the Qatar Air Force One replacement, though I actually think E.S. undersold the issue. The proposed Air Force One replacement is more ill-considered than it seems on the surface. I have some experience with military secure communications and considerable experience with high-tech military equipment (legally prohibited from elaborating). It will likely cost far too much and take more time than the current president has in office (unless he becomes king sometime soon).
Consider the Air Force One replacement program. In 2016, then candidate Trump, now Convicted Felon Trump (CFT), said the program to replace the Air Force One fleet was too expensive and should be canceled. In 2018, CFT twisted Boeing's metaphorical arm and got a reduction in the price. Since then, Boeing has scheduled delivery for 2021, then 2022, and the current delivery is scheduled for 2027. Boeing is over $2.5B in the hole on the contract and is likely to lose more before it gets done. Now consider that there is only one contractor in the world with the necessary expertise to refit the Qatar flying palace to be usable as Air Force One, namely... Boeing. It is possible that Boeing may be willing to low-bid the contract to avoid angering CFT, but I doubt it. Air Force One is required to be able to endure radiation from a nearby nuclear explosion and to be secure from electronic surveillance. To meet these requirements, it would be necessary to remove and replace all the electronics with much more expensive systems and remove all the pretty interior to install shielding.
If there isn't a law covering the minimum requirements for Air Force One, there should be, but I suppose it is possible CFT could waive these requirements. Best case, if just the necessary communications equipment were installed, there would be little time between when it was operational and when it would be time to begin the process of decommissioning the plane. This brings up a frightening possibility: There really isn't anyone to stop CFT from transferring the aircraft to his presidential library foundation with the secure communications equipment still installed. Only the Congress, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General have any authority, as the courts have zero say in what CFT does with Air Force One until after noon, Jan 20, 2029. If succeeded by a Republican president, the succeeding president probably wouldn't do much or anything to recover the secure equipment.
The idea of CFT leaving office in a bitter and resentful mood with a plane containing some of the most sensitive secure communications equipment the government owns should be concerning to all. Suppose CFT let representatives of a hostile foreign power, including engineers who are experts on secure communications, visit the plane. Suppose CFT took a trip in the flying palace to a hostile foreign power. The best-case scenario is for CFT to back down and not accept the gift (bribe?). The second-best-case scenario is CFT accepts the gift (bribe?) and the contract negotiations never complete, and no taxpayer dollars go to the project other than having to pay to store and guard it and it transfers to the presidential library foundation unaltered. The second scenario is the best-case scenario for CFT, because the plane will remain in its opulent state and would not suffer from the modifications. After all, he won't be able to use it as president, anyway.
Thanks, G.W.!
Of course, the members of Congress, etc. aren't reading what our readers have to say. However, there were a number of stories yesterday published by major media outlets which lay out the same basic logistical problems. For example, this piece from NBC News is headlined "Turning Qatari 747 into Air Force One could cost $1 billion and take years, experts say," and also helpfully points out that if the government spends a billion dollars to make a $400 million plane usable, that's not actually a cost savings.
Beyond the logistical issues, there's also the other obvious problem, namely "What does Qatar want in exchange for this 'generous' gesture?" There have now been some articles on that subject, too, like this one, which points out that Qatar would really like access to more U.S.-built defense equipment (it's already a large purchaser, but wants to be an even larger purchaser). The Qataris also export a lot of liquified natural gas, and would very much love to sell more of it to the U.S., perhaps with the aid of American extraction technology.
Finally, while not as important as the other two issues, the optics here are very bad. Qatar is in bed with Iran, and so is hostile to Israel. A large portion of the MAGA base does not like that. Also, America is supposed to be a mighty capitalist power, and so should not need handouts of used planes from a nation with less than 1% of the population of the United States.
For these reasons, presumably, the big Republican guns in the Senate are now squawking about the proposition. We're not just talking Susan Collins (ME) expressing "concern." We're talking Senate Majority Leader John Thune (SD) saying he is not comfortable with the idea, Ted Cruz (TX) declaring that it presents too many security risks, and Rand Paul urging Trump to reject the offer. This is what senators do to send the message "We encourage you not to push your luck on this, and risk public embarrassment at the hands of the Senate."
Trump, for his part, is still trying to stay the course. On his meme-stock social media platform, after whining that the current Air Force One just isn't fancy enough, he wrote:
The Boeing 747 is being given to the United States Air Force/Department of Defense, NOT TO ME! It is a gift from a Nation, Qatar, that we have successfully defended for many years. It will be used by our Government as a temporary Air Force One, until such time as our new Boeings, which are very late on delivery, arrive. Why should our military, and therefore our taxpayers, be forced to pay hundreds of millions of Dollars when they can get it for FREE from a country that wants to reward us for a job well done. This big savings will be spent, instead, to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! Only a FOOL would not accept this gift on behalf of our Country.
Either Trump is stupid/naive enough to believe there are no strings attached here, or else he knows full well there ARE strings and he's just being dishonest. These strike us as being roughly equally likely.
In the end, there are limits to Trump's political capital. There's also the problem that when it comes to the $1 billion needed to overhaul the plane, he doesn't actually control the capital. We think he is very likely to back down, even though he so very badly wants to have that plane for his retirement. If he doesn't, then we'll get to see if the senators find their spines, and follow through on their implied threat. (Z)
Republicans Have a "Plan" for Medicaid
There are some Republicans in the House who want the federal budget slashed, bigly. Not an easy task, and made harder when a political party is also pursuing fat tax cuts. Given where the lion's share of spending takes place, serious budget cuts can only be achieved by significantly reducing spending on: (1) the military, (2) Social Security, (3) Medicare, or (4) Medicaid. The first option is a nonstarter for Republicans, and the second and third options are basically nonstarters for everyone, since senior citizens tend to, you know, vote. That leaves Medicaid.
Just because Medicaid is the lowest-hanging fruit, however, does not mean it is actually low-hanging fruit. A lot of people, including a lot of people in red states, depend on Medicaid. Also, at least some members of Congress have figured out that bacteria and viruses do not check a person's insurance card, such that if sickness is allowed to run rampant among non-insured people, it will inevitably cross over to insured people. So, the system ends up bearing serious costs due to the uninsured, even if it's indirect.
Over the past month or so, Republicans in the House have bandied about various Medicaid-cost-cutting ideas that would have amounted to a pretty direct assault on the program. The one that got the most oxygen was a plan to impose a cap on the amount that the federal government would pay for each beneficiary. That was not well received within the halls of Congress, or without.
And so, House GOP leadership now has a more... sneaky approach. What they want to do is require recipients to prove that, if they are "able-bodied adults without dependents," they are meeting "community engagement requirements." This is NewSpeak for "you have to have a job if you want Medicaid." They also want to compel states to engage in much more aggressive screening, and much more frequent audits of eligibility for each recipient.
All of this is meant to make it seem as if the Republican proposal will save money by cutting fat and getting goldbricks off the dole. However, this is much like the voter ID laws that are allegedly, but not really, about voter fraud. Most Medicaid recipients who are able to work are already doing so. And studies have shown that stricter screening and more frequent auditing do not actually serve to meaningfully reduce fraud. What's really going on is that the more hoops the government throws up, the more people will struggle to jump through those hoops. Maybe it's a lack of time, or energy, or fluency, or whatever, but the current proposal will serve to kick a lot of people off of Medicaid who SHOULD be eligible. The Congressional Budget Office has already scored the proposal, and estimated that 8.6 million people would lose health insurance, increasing the number of uninsured people in America by 30% in one fell swoop.
Readers will notice that we have put "plan" in quotations in the headline. That is because while the proposal certainly qualifies as a plan, the statement "Republicans have a plan" somewhat implies that the members have reached a consensus. They most certainly have not. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and other members of House Republican leadership are hoping that the proposal will cut enough money to please the budget hawks, but will do so in a manner that is enough under-the-radar to mollify the moderates. Johnson may well come up short on both counts. The hawks want much bigger cuts than the $600 billion or so that would be slashed if this proposal was to become law. And the moderates know that, by November 2026, those 8.6 million people will have noticed they don't have health insurance anymore, regardless of how covertly it is done.
Oh, and Johnson also hasn't figured out a middle way on the SALT issue, either. He's planning to try to tackle that today.
Undoubtedly, if a speaker is trying to move a budget, it's better to have something on paper than to have nothing. And maybe Johnson will be able to herd the cats. But from where we sit, it looks like the promised land is still far, far away. Like, 40 years of wandering in the desert far away.
And, as a postscript, allow us to note that The New York Times, in reporting on this story, had what struck us as one of the worst bothsidesism headlines we've ever seen. The story notes the CBO finding that 8.6 million people will lose their health insurance, but observes that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and other Democrats say it's going to be 13.7 million. And so, the headline is "Millions Would Lose Health Coverage Under G.O.P. Bill. But Not as Many as Democrats Say." Oh, those politicians! Some of them are trying to take away healthcare from millions of people, while others are exaggerating for political effect. They're all the same! (Z)
Omaha Elects Democratic Mayor
Yesterday, the good people of Omaha, NE, headed to the polls to elect a mayor. And although Omaha mayoral races are nominally nonpartisan, this one was just like every other "nonpartisan" race these days. That is to say, everyone knows that three-term incumbent Jean Stothert is a Republican, and that challenger John Ewing Jr. is a Democrat. And once the ballots were counted, Ewing won a crushing victory, taking 56% of the vote to 44% for Stothert. That makes the mayor-elect the first Black person to serve as the city's chief executive.
Naturally, given the small number of elections of any significance right now, people are glomming onto this result as a referendum on Donald Trump. Let us begin by pointing out the main reasons you will want to be cautious about that conclusion. Omaha is pretty cosmopolitan and pretty purple, and of the last six people to serve as mayor, three were Republicans and three were Democrats. The congressional district in which Omaha is located, NE-02, is D+3, and while it's gone Republican in every House election save one since 1995, its electoral vote has gone for the Democrat in three of the last five elections. Also, if you look at the "issues" page of Ewing's website, it actually looks pretty Republican, unless you keep reading for a while. The issues highlighted at the top of the page are things like crime prevention, fiscal responsibility and homeland security. It isn't until you get into the 27th and 28th items on the page that Ewing talks about women's rights and support for immigrants.
Now, let's note a couple of reasons that "this election was a referendum on Trump" is not completely out of the question. First, although the race retained a local focus until the last few weeks, Stothert eventually saw she was in trouble, and started attacking Ewing as someone who really wants trans girls to be able to play girls' sports. Undoubtedly, there are two, maybe even three trans girls trying to do so in Nebraska, so it's clearly a very relevant issue. Ewing returned fire with claims that Stothert is just a Trump stooge who wants to implement the worst parts of his agenda. Point is, the election wasn't terribly Trumpy... until it was.
Second, Ewing didn't just win; as we note, it was a laugher. Elections in Omaha and/or NE-02 are rarely decided by double-digits. Further, if the Democrats are going to retake the House, this is precisely the kind of district they need to flip (in fact, the current NE-02 representative, Republican Don Bacon, is a top target of the DCCC). What the blue team needs is to swing 2-3% of the vote in 15-20 of these purple districts, and the House will almost certainly be theirs. And Ewing just swung considerably more than 2-3% of the vote. So, Democrats should indeed feel good about this result. Just not TOO good. (Z)
Alabama Legislature Takes the L
The Alabama redistricting case may have finally reached its denouement, as a 3-judge panel in a federal district court in Alabama has issued a final ruling finding that the Alabama state legislature violated the Voting Rights Act in its 2023 redrawing of legislative districts.
This saga began in 2021 when voters challenged the state legislature's redistricting plan that only included one majority-Black congressional district, which was itself drawn by a federal court in 1992. The Court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the use of that map, finding that it was substantially likely that it violated Section Two of the Voting Rights Act by "unlawfully diluting the votes of Black Alabamians." The Court ordered the legislature to draw a new map that included a second majority-Black district "based on extensive evidence of intensely racially polarized voting in Alabama." The Supreme Court put that order on hold and the 2021 map was used in the 2022 congressional elections. In June 2023, the Supreme Court upheld the preliminary injunction and agreed that the 2021 map violated the Voting Rights Act.
The case then went back to the 3-judge panel in 2023, so the parties could get their marching orders. The state asked the Court to delay imposing a remedy to give the legislature time to draw a new map in light of the Court's findings. The Court agreed, and in July 2023 was rewarded for its deference by the legislature essentially bringing the same map back to them, one that still included only one majority-Black district. The state argued that the 2023 plan didn't need two majority-Black districts to comply with the Court's findings. The judges, all appointed by Republicans, including two Donald Trump appointees, were dumbfounded: "We are not aware of any other case in which a state legislature—faced with a federal court order declaring that its electoral plan unlawfully dilutes minority votes and requiring a remedial plan that provides an additional opportunity district—responded with a plan that the state concedes does not provide that district."
The Court preliminarily enjoined the 2023 plan and directed a special master to propose three remedial maps for the Court to consider. The state once again sought a stay from the Supreme Court, but was rebuffed. The district court chose Remedial Plan 3, which included two majority-Black districts, and ordered that it be used in the 2024 elections. Both districts, AL-02 and AL-07, elected Black Representatives in 2024. Interestingly, the Court's appointed cartographer did not consider race when preparing the plans. The Special Master explained:
[The] proposed remedial plans are neither prohibited racial gerrymanders nor intentionally discriminatory... [W]hile the Special Master confirmed that Black residents had an opportunity to elect candidates of their choice through an election performance analysis, the boundaries within the recommended remedial plans were not drawn on the basis of race. In fact, the Special Master's cartographer, Mr. Ely, did not display racial demographic data while drawing districts or examining others' proposed remedial plans within the mapping software, Maptitude. Instead, Mr. Ely relied on other characteristics and criteria, such as preserving the Black Belt community of interest, restoring counties that had been split, and preserving precincts and municipalities to the extent possible.
The parties were back in court in February for a full trial on the merits that lasted 11 days and, last week, the Court issued its final ruling on the 2023 map. The judges did not hold back in their scathing 570-page opinion. The Court found that the Alabama legislature "intentionally discriminated against Black Alabamians when it passed the 2023 plan." The Court reiterated that "[t]he Voting Rights Act does not provide a leg up for Black voters—it merely prevents them from being kept down with regard to what is arguably the most 'fundamental political right,' in that it is 'preservative of all rights'—the right to vote." The evidence was undisputed that voting in Alabama is "intensely racially polarized" in that "Black candidates have enjoyed zero success in statewide elections in Alabama since 1994 (when a single Black person was elected to the Alabama Supreme Court after a previous appointment), and only three Black candidates have ever been elected to any statewide office since Reconstruction. Similarly, Black candidates have enjoyed near-zero success in legislative elections outside of opportunity districts: thirty-two of the thirty-three Black Alabamians currently serving in the 140-person Legislature were elected from majority-Black districts created to comply with federal law."
And the legislature's flagrant disregard for the Court's order left it astonished:
[T]ry as we might, we cannot understand the 2023 Plan as anything other than an intentional effort to dilute Black Alabamians' voting strength and evade the unambiguous requirements of court orders standing in the way. After we and the Supreme Court ruled that the 2021 Plan, with only one majority-Black district, likely had the unlawful discriminatory effect of diluting Black Alabamians' votes, the Legislature deliberately enacted another Plan that it concedes lacks the second Black-opportunity district we said was required. This amounted to intentional racial discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection guarantee.
The end result is that the 2023 Plan is permanently enjoined and based on the finding of intentional discrimination under the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court could order the state to resume preclearance under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act for future congressional districting. This would put the state under federal supervision for potentially any changes related to voting rules and procedures. Although the Supreme Court struck down the portion of the law that automatically required preclearance for past discrimination, a finding of intentional discrimination can be a basis for returning a state to that status. The Court will conduct remedial proceedings "expeditiously." The Court could very well order the Court-drawn map to be used in all future elections until the next census, which would not be surprising in light of the "State's view that even if we enter judgment for the Plaintiffs after a full trial, the State remains free to make the same checkmate move yet again—and again, and again, and again."
The Court wasn't done. In a final salvo, the judges said the legislature "had raised the stakes of this litigation well beyond redistricting." Recalling a shameful period and with an eye toward current events, the Court hearkened back to a decision from the Jim Crow era: "In a case all too familiar to Alabama, the Supreme Court explained decades ago that decisions to ignore court orders are intolerable in our system of ordered liberty even when they are undertaken in unassailable good faith and for purely 'righteous' purposes." They added: "The 2020 redistricting cycle in Alabama—the first cycle in 50 years that Alabama has been free of the strictures of federal preclearance—did not have to turn out this way. We wish it had not, but we have eyes to see the veritable mountain of evidence that it did." (L)
Previous | Next
Main page for smartphones