What's Next in Iran?

The correct answer: "Nobody knows." That specifically includes Donald Trump, who is just winging it. He thought Iran would offer an unconditional surrender within a few days to avoid being bombed back to the 7th century. Turns out they like the 7th century. It's their favorite century. Who knew that bombing wouldn't bring them to their knees? Probably only historians who have studied the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, the war in Vietnam and the war in Korea. Bombing rarely results in regime change. Only boots on the ground have a real chance to do that, and even then often not.

Political analysts don't have a clue either. Consider these headlines:

• Trump Is Finally Eyeing an Exit From Iran. But Will He Take It? (NYT)
  
• US pauses sanctions on some of Iran's oil as gas prices surge (Politico)
  
• US speeds up deployment of thousands more Marines, sailors to Middle East (The Hill)
  
• Trump weighing several options for U.S. troops inside Iran (NBC)
  
• Trump is strategizing means to seize Iran's nuclear stockpiles, sources say (CBS)
  
• Trump mulls risky Kharg Island takeover to force Iran to open strait (Axios)
  

In other words, it is beginning to dawn on Trump that this is not Venezuela, Part II. It won't be over in 1 day. It is not going well and he needs to do something. But what? Maybe allow Iran and Russia to sell their oil so Iran has more money to kill American soldiers? Interesting concept. Maybe run a couple of focus groups to see how the voters go for it. What about sending in the Marines? Sure. But what would they do there? Take Iran's enriched uranium? Occupy Kharg Island and seize the oil? He doesn't have a clue.

Maybe ask that long-time military strategist, war hero and former third-tier Fox host Secretary of Defense War Pete Hegseth? Nah, Hegseth is too busy trying to root out transgender soldiers to have time to do things like fight actual wars... er, "excursions." Of course, Trump could jump the chain of command and ask Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Dan "Raizin" Caine. But Caine already told him this would not be easy and Trump ignored the advice, preferring to listen to his gut rather than listen to a 4-star general who has extensive experience fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. So now what and what happens next?

Axios doesn't know either, but does have a list of topics that need to be addressed before the excursion in Iran can end.

• The Strait of Hormuz: The price of gas and diesel fuel is becoming a big problem for Donald Trump. There is an even bigger problem coming down the road for Trump in about 6 months, just before the midterms, but he is probably not aware of it now: fertilizer. It takes a Nobel Memorial Prize winner in economics to keep track of this stuff, and Trump is working on the Peace Prize, not the Economics Prize. It turns out that farmers are starting to plant this year's food crop now and they need fertilizer now, and a lot of it is bottled up on the wrong side of the Strait of Hormuz. Farmers can't wait because they need to plant now so their crops will be ready to be harvested before frost sets in. If there is a shortage of fertilizer in April, food prices will go up in October.
  
  Trump has toyed with the idea of just leaving Iran because the U.S. doesn't import any oil from the region, but probably unbeknownst to him, it does import a lot of fertilizer from the region. Also, if world oil prices remain sky high, U.S. producers are going to charge the world price, even if they don't have to. Making extra profit with no extra work is a no-brainer for the oil companies. Of course, Trump is a communist at heart, so he might try to use the Defense Production Act of 1950 to nationalize oil production for some amount of time. If so, Big Oil would be thrilled about what they got in exchange for their millions in "donations" to his inaugural committee.
  
  
• Boots on the Ground: This is obviously a major, major decision. Bringing troops to the region is easy (but expensive). Ordering troops into an active war zone is probably the most consequential decision any president can make. It could range from a small number of secret special forces with a limited mission to a full-bore invasion. The former decision could result in hostages. The latter decision could result in many deaths and injuries to the soldiers, which tends to turn public opinion against the invasion and against the president who made the decision. Trump would be betting the farm if he does this. Getting it right could save the House. Getting it wrong could give the Democrats 40-50 extra seats in the House and 5-10 in the Senate.
  
  
• Iran's Uranium: One of Trump's many stated goals for bombing Iran is to prevent it from building a nuclear weapon. Iran is believed to have produced hundreds of kilograms of bomb-grade uranium. Will Trump end the war and leave Iran with all of that uranium, hoping that the resulting bomb is tested on the next president's watch?
  
  
• Who will lead Iran?: After the old and sick Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was killed, he was replaced by his son, the young and not-sick Mojtaba Khamenei. Reports say that junior is even more of a hard liner than dad. There are also rumors that junior was injured in one of the attacks. A young, vigorous, and very angry hardliner is just what Trump needs as a negotiating partner. It will test his deal-making skills.

Trump has had a number of surprises so far in the war. First, He expected Iran, a proud country previously called Persia, and going back about 2600 years to Cyrus the Great, to give in when first attacked. Turns out it has been attacked and beaten a couple of times before, but that has required the military genius and large army of someone like Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan. Donald may think he is Great but Genghis Khan he is not.

Second, he didn't expect Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz and cause energy prices to skyrocket. The U.S. military certainly did and no doubt told him, but he probably didn't believe them. The oil companies certainly knew, but maybe he didn't bother to ask them. Maybe someone could give him a world map for his 80th birthday in June. It could come in handy some day. But no Sharpies!

Third, in a war like this one, it is good to have allies. Trump was surprised that after a year of his telling America's allies that they were useless parasites and of no use to him, they did not immediately spring to attention when he ordered them to send ships to the Strait. Ingrates.

Fourth, he was expecting the Revolutionary Guard to take over and they didn't. They have a good deal going as it is and have no need to pick a fight with the clergy.

Fifth, he was also expecting the people of Iran to rise up. They did a few weeks ago and he promised to help. But he didn't. Maybe it was a tad naive to expect they would rise up again after something like 30,000 people were murdered by the regime in Round 1 and America wasn't there for them that time.

Sixth, he didn't really consider the likely political effects and is only starting to see them. Maybe he was so expecting a short, easy war (despite what the generals told him) that it never occurred to him that wars have rarely been popular in U.S. history unless the country has been attacked, as it was at Pearl Harbor. If the war continues for a few more months, more soldiers are killed, or inflation comes roaring back, the nastiest surprise of all may come on Nov. 3.

In short, lots of things have happened differently than in his dreams. And it is not over until the fat lady sings. There could be a recession, a wider war, and other unexpected events. Or when all is said and done, we could return to the status quo ante after using up most of America's stockpile of munitions and not being in a position to help Taiwan if China decides this is the time for "reunification." The reality is that Trump has no good options now, only bad, worse, and worst. (V)

Trump Is Sending ICE to Airports Today

Sunday morning, Donald Trump sent out a bleat on his antisocial social media site saying ICE agents would go to airports starting today to "help" TSA agents. Of course, they are completely untrained to do the work TSA agents do, which is to make sure no one smuggles weapons or explosives onto airplanes. Trump wrote that ICE agents would "do security like no one has ever seen before, including the immediate arrest of all Illegal Immigrants who have come into our Country, with heavy emphasis on those from Somalia." Deploying ICE agents to airports would be a massive expansion of immigration enforcement.

On CNN's State of the Union yesterday, border czar Tom Homan said the administration is working to decide what the agents will do at airports and hoped to have it worked out by the end of the day. If the plan is hatched Sunday evening and the agents start Monday morning, that means the agents will have no training at all. They will just freestyle. Looking at an x-ray of a suitcase or a scan of a person, and trying to see if there is anything dangerous there, takes months of training. So what will the agents do? Maybe look for people with brown or skin and pull them out of line to interrogate them about why they are flying, where they are going, and why? Even in the Jim Crow South they never did that.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said: "ICE agents, who are untrained and have caused problems everywhere they've gone, lurking at our airports? That's asking for trouble." That is putting it mildly, to say the least. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) was less polite: "The last thing the American people need is for untrained ICE agents to be deployed at airports across the country potentially to brutalize or to kill them." Not all Republicans are on board with the plan. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) was asked about the plan and she said: "Not a fan of that."

Maybe the next step is to send ICE agents to supermarkets to check the papers of anyone entering to make sure they are legally in the U.S. That would prevent undocumented immigrants from getting food, so they would have to choose between self deporting or starving. Of course, citizens without proof of citizenship would starve too, but, hey, no system is perfect. Trump could minimize inconvenience by doing this only in blue cities and states.

Of course, the long lines at airports could be alleviated by just paying TSA agents so all of them came to work. This is what the Democrats have proposed, but Republicans are not willing to accept this. They want all of DHS funded with no restrictions on ICE agents. Democrats want to rein in ICE in various ways and are not willing to fund all of DHS until Trump agrees to reining in ICE. (V)

The Wall Is Back

Remember back in 2016 when Donald Trump claimed he would build a wall along the 2,000-mile long Mexican border—and get Mexico to pay for it? Well, he didn't build the wall and Mexico didn't pay for it. On the face of it, if the goal is to reduce illegal immigration, making it physically difficult to cross the border outside an official entry point makes sense. It is much easier to stop people from getting in the country in the first place than trying to round them up and deport them after the fact. It has a lot more support and less blowback. But somehow, Trump didn't get much wall built in his first term and hasn't talked about it since then.

Now wall-building is back in vogue, largely due to $47 billion in the BBB. About 3 miles a week are now being built. But it is also controversial for a variety of reasons.

One of the objections is the environmental impact. The 2005 REAL ID Act standardized drivers' licenses nationwide but also made multipple changes to immigration law. For example, it authorized immigration judges to demand documentary proof of an applicant's case for asylum. It also made border security projects like, you know, walls exempt from two key environmental protection laws that often delay projects in the courts for years. It also allows border security projects to skip time-consuming public hearings and negotiations with local officials.

Construction of a wall in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas could deplete scarce groundwater. Crews are already pumping 1 million gallons of groundwater a day for a wall construction project near Tucson. It would also interfere with animal migration patterns, and disturb the flora and fauna of the area. Aaron Flesch, a research scientist at the University of Arizona, said: "A jaguar is not going to climb a nine-meter wall." Nor will the bears, antelope, and bighorn sheep that need to cross the border to survive and keep the species going. Bright LED lights along the border could disorient bats, birds, and insects. In some cases, there is already a wall present but it has been deemed ineffective, so second wall is being built 200' inside the U.S., on private property, with landowners losing some of the their property to the no-man's-land between the walls. It would also trap some animals.

Part of the problem now is that there are large national and state parks on the border and the wall would go through them. Wall opponents say that the wall would ruin the wilderness experience the parks were designed to provide. They say the arid landscape, scarcity of water, brutal heat, sheer cliffs, mountains, distance from roads and predators in the parks and adjacent areas are barrier enough. That isolation has also created a bond between people on both sides of the border, since just surviving in such an inhospitable area is tough. There is also a tourist industry. People near the Big Bend National Park's hot springs can walk 40' to Mexico and buy $10 tamales from a local family. Several companies offer canoe trips in the Rio Grande. Here is a small section of the border:

Yet another problem is parts of the border are sacred to Native Americans who have lived there for thousands of years. Pumping out the groundwater would make it impossible for them to continue living there. All in all, a substantial piece of the wall will be very contentious and opposed by the people who live near the border.

One thing that could be done to stop illegal immigration with much less environmental cost is to have the Army Corps of Engineers dredge the river to make it 10' deep in the middle and then put buoys connected by steel chains in the middle to block boats. That doesn't seem to be on anyone's radar, though. (V)

The 2028 Presidential Race Has Begun

Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY) is nothing if not confident. Rather than attacking his likely presidential primary opponents, like Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA), his opening bid is attacking a possible general-election opponent, J.D. Vance. And while Beshear will be a formidable primary competitor, his primary victory is far from assured since there are a fair number of equally formidable primary competitors.

On Saturday, Beshear was in the Ohio county where Vance grew up. Beshear called Vance "the most arrogant politician I have ever seen." Beshear said that Vance makes Donald Trump look humble, no easy feat. Then he went on attacking Vance: "Ohio deserved a much better senator than him, and we all deserve a much better vice president."

Beshear attacked Vance's origin story, claiming that Vance was largely raised in Middletown, OH, which is near Cincinnati and not part of Appalachia. In other words, Vance's "up from nothing" story is actually false. He also attacked Vance for saying that a woman who is raped and gets pregnant, must carry the fetus to term, a position he completely disagrees with.

Beshear also made a couple of questionable assumptions when he said: "There is no one who will work harder, no matter what I am doing next year, to beat J.D. Vance in 2028." First, he is assuming he will be the Democratic nominee in 2028. Gavin Newsom, Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA), Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), and a few others might quibble with that. People like politicians to be confident, so not a big problem.

Assuming that Vance will be the Republican nominee is a mistake of a different order. As an experienced politician, Beshear ought to know that a week is a long time in politics and 2 years is a close approximation to infinity. If Beshear did his homework, he should know that Vance's main "principle" (to the extent that he has any principles, which we doubt), it is that he is against "forever wars in the Middle East." Yet he is now a big cheerleader for another forever war in the Middle East. No matter how this one ends, his primary opponents are going to hang this around his neck. There is plenty of video of Vance saying he is against getting the U.S. involved in wars in the Middle East and plenty of video saying he likes the current one. Just fire up Final Cut Pro or Premiere Pro and you've got an ad right there. Voters who really don't like forever wars in the Middle East are going to see him as a hypocrite, liar or fool. Vance also has an obnoxious, in-your-face personality and fails the beer test badly, certainly compared to other Republican hopefuls like Marco Rubio, Glenn Youngkin, and Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA). This doesn't mean we think Vance is unlikely to get the nomination, just that he is no shoo-in, especially if the war in Iran ends badly and he is still cheerleading it in the end. He might get it, but he will have to earn his spurs in a more competitive environment than Vance or Beshear is expecting now.

Maybe this speech was a one-off preemptive attack on a potential general-election opponent, but it will be interesting to see if Beshear keeps it up, especially when he has a much more inviting target: Donald Trump. He won't have to run against Trump, but getting out there against Trump now will give Beshear more credibility with the Democratic base. It has worked very well for Newsom, and could work well for Beshear. One approach he could try, which we suspect would be a big hit with much of the Democratic base, would be to promise to appoint an aggressive AG who will vigorously prosecute all the lawbreakers in the current administration from Trump all the way down. (V)

Poll: Talarico Leads both Paxton and Cornyn

Both Democrats and Republicans are fretting about the Texas Senate runoff between Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Texas AG Ken Paxton. Democrats are hoping, even praying—or on account of Democrat James Talarico's status as a Presbyterian seminarian—that the totally corrupt Paxton will be the nominee. Republicans are scared witless that that could indeed happen. Donald Trump promised to make an endorsement to drive one of the candidates out of the race. Well, TACO, and the filing deadline has now passed, so both names will be on the primary ballot. Trump probably skipped making the endorsement for two reasons. First, he hates to back a loser and it is not clear who will win the primary. Second, he is caught between the Senate leadership, which supports Cornyn, and his own base, which supports Paxton.

Now a new Impact Research poll of likely general-election voters released by Talarico's campaign shows that it may not matter, as both Cornyn and Paxton are deeply unpopular. Cornyn's approval is 33 points under water, at 27% favorable and 60% unfavorable. Paxton is a mere 18 points under water at 27%/55%. Both men are deeply unpopular with independents. Cornyn is -42 points with them and Paxton is at -32. Both men are less popular than even Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX). Being less popular in Texas than Ted Cruz is something of an achievement. Normal, garden-variety politicians can't do that.

In general-election matchups, Talarico beats Cornyn 43% to 41% and beats Paxton 44% to 43%. This suggests that it doesn't really matter who wins the runoff. The runoff is May 26, which means there will be 2 months of nasty mudslinging between the two Republicans, with Paxton calling Cornyn a RINO and Cornyn calling Paxton a crook. Months of negative ads could cause some Republicans to just skip voting in November since Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) is a shoo-in for another term and doesn't need the votes.

While Cornyn and Paxton are shooting at each other until the end of May, the Bible-quoting Talarico is free to raise money for the general election and run a positive campaign. He isn't talking about left vs. right, but about top vs. bottom. No Democrat has won a statewide race in Texas for decades, but the combination of a mild-mannered, openly religious Democrat, a deeply unpopular Republican, a bad economy, and an unpopular war might just be the ticket for the Democrats. (V)

"Fetterman Must Go"

Both parties have always had members of Congress who did not follow the party line. For the Republicans, think: Sen Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY). For the Democrats, there were a pair of former senators: Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. Now there is another Democratic senator who increasingly many Democrats want to get rid of: Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA). When Fetterman appeared on the scene in 2022, he was hailed as a true working-class hero who could bring in white, working-class men. People were even talking about his as a presidential candidate in 2028. No more.

The most recent event that has turned Democrats against Fetterman is his vote to advance the nomination of Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) for secretary of DHS. The Senate Homeland Security Committee has 15 members, eight Republicans and seven Democrats. The Libertarian-at-heart chairman, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), voted "nay" on Mullins but the other seven Republicans voted "aye." Six of the Democrats voted "nay," making it 7-7. Fetterman was thus the tie-breaking vote and he voted with the Republicans, meaning that Mullins, whose background is his family's plumbing company, will virtually certainly be in charge of ICE, FEMA and the Coast Guard in short order.

Democrats are furious with Fetterman for advancing the nomination of someone so obviously unqualified to run the sprawling DHS. Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA), the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, said it was time for Fetterman to go. The senator is not up in 2026, but he IS up in 2028. Boyle is considering a primary challenge to Fetterman, whose polling makes Sinema look like Miss Popularity. When Fetterman was elected, he was the progressives' hero. When he was campaigning in 2022, his net approval among Pennsylvania Democrats was +68. Now it is -40. Swings of 108 points in 4 years don't happen every day.

Other House Democrats, including Reps. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA) and Pat Ryan (D-NY), have also called for Fetterman to go. Fetterman has frequently given the impression that he hates being in the Senate, with all its formal procedures and inability to get anything done. He could switch to the GOP, but history shows that Pennsylvania voters hate turncoats. If he continues to be so deeply underwater, it is very likely that Boyle or some other Democrat will beat him in a primary in 2028 if he runs. However, a more likely scenario is that he decides not to run for reelection, leaving an open-seat race behind in 2028. (V)

Trump Sees the Light and Reverses Course on Jeff Hurd

Rep. Jeff Hurd (R-CO) is one of six Republican congressmen who voted with the Democrats to rescind the tariffs Trump had imposed on Canada. He did this because there are companies and farmers in his district who were hurt by the tariff. Trump was furious with Hurd, who is otherwise a loyal Republican and decided to endorse Hurd's primary opponent, a Marjorie-Taylor-Greene-class lunatic named Hope Scheppelman. That will teach Hurd! Yup!

Apparently, someone in Trump's orbit dared to tell him that Scheppelman is so far out that she would probably lose the Grand Junction seat, even though it is R+5. In a rare reversal, Trump changed his mind, withdrew his endorsement of Scheppelman, and re-endorsed Hurd. Trump is probably still furious with Hurd, but understands what the loss of the House would mean (no more budget reconciliation bills and probably impeachment), so he made this very unusual about face.

Trump also felt he had to get Scheppelman out of the race altogether. She is very MAGA and could still win, with or without his endorsement. Also, the NRCC didn't want to spend money in the primary getting Hurd over the finish line first. He made a vague promise to Scheppelman that he would give her an (unspecified) job in the administration if she would drop out, and she did. She probably doesn't realize that she is headed to Lower Slobovia as a deputy assistant ambassador trainee, but she will soon realize that. But by then it will be too late to get back in the race.

But for Trump, it is mission accomplished. Two Democrats are slugging it out in the Democratic primary, Alex Keloff and Dwayne Romero. Whoever wins will face Hurd in November. In a strong blue wave, Hurd could still lose, but the seat is much less likely to flip with Scheppelman out of the way. (V)

Follow the Money

Outside spending on elections has gone through the roof. It has passed $225 million for the primaries so far, and we have had only five of them so far. Just wait until the general election starts.

Even worse, special interest groups are now trying to hide their spending by funneling it through other groups with names that don't reveal whose money it was or what they want. For example, AIPAC, which supports Israel, ran ads in an Illinois House Democratic primary attacking Daniel Biss (who is Jewish) by funneling it through a shell group called Elect Chicago Women. The ads were intended to help a woman candidate whose position on Israel they preferred. Biss won anyway. Money distorts politics terribly, but it is not always decisive.

The groups that are doing this have plenty of lawyers and make sure what they are doing is technically legal, even if the intent is to deceive the voters. The amount being spent by outside groups keeps growing and the deception keeps getting worse. Here is the spending in congressional races since 2010.

In the Illinois House elections last week, three groups poured boatloads of money into the races. They were AIPAC, the crypto "industry," and groups supporting AI and don't want it regulated. In some cases, the spending converged. Former congresswoman Melissa Bean got money from all three and won her primary by 3,500 votes. When asked about all the outside spending for her, she said: "I was just really proud to get a lot of broad base support from just every wing of Democrat," a somewhat awkward phrasing, but the point is she liked all the money. However, there were other races with AIPAC money fighting against crypto money, with mixed results.

A group called Fairshake supports the crypto "industry." It wants politicians to give "blockchain innovators the ability to develop their networks under a clearer regulatory and legal framework." They didn't mention that the only area where blockchain is the best solution is crime, especially kidnappers collecting their ransom anonymously. For everything else, there are better solutions not using blockchain. Basically, blockchain is a big transaction log. Computers are very good at keeping transaction logs. Mastercard processes 400 million transactions a day and has no problem doing so.

What blockchain adds to the mix is doing it secretly, so no one can find out who transferred money where. That is the magic ingredient that criminals want. Normal businesses very much want an accurate record of who transferred how much to whom and when. They don't want it to be anonymous. The other group that supports blockchain are the people and companies in the crypto "industry" who are convincing ordinary people to buy a product that is at its heart, a Ponzi scheme, where the underlying product has no intrinsic value. Crypto is sometimes compared to stocks, but the comparison is false. Buying a share of stock gives you a claim to a certain percentage of a company's profit in the form of its dividends (or possibly future dividends for a young company). Crypto doesn't pay dividends or interest. It is a bet that someone else is willing to pay more than you did for your coin. (V)

DHS Is Still Not Funded

With all the attention for the war in Iran, many people have forgotten that DHS is still closed and has been for 41 days now. Except the people standing in line for 3 or 4 hours at poorly staffed TSA airport checkpoints. TSA workers are about to miss a second payday, and they are calling in sick at record rates. Some of them have found temporary work so they can put food on the table and pay the rent.

Meanwhile the fifth attempt to pass a DHS funding bill failed on Friday. Democrats want a number of changes made at ICE before they will support funding for DHS and Republicans are refusing. Democrats want all ICE agents to wear badges identifying themselves, wear bodycams, and not wear masks. They also want to ban ICE from entering hospitals, schools, churches and private homes without a warrant from an Art. III judge stating who or what is to be seized. Currently, ICE agents are using administrative warrants, which are just permission slips from Executive Branch employees, not real judges. On Saturday, Democrats offered a stand-alone bill to fund TSA, without funding the rest of DHS and that failed, too.

In an attempt to make some progress, border czar Tom Homan has met with a bipartisan group of senators several times. Democrats left the meeting with no comments. Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, said: "The American people have had enough of this rogue agency. We need to rein it in." Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), the chair of the Appropriations Committee, said the White House had made "a very fair, reasonable offer."

Just a minute here. Last time we checked the Constitution, Congress had the power of the purse, not the president. Senate Democrats should be negotiating with Senate Republicans, not with the president. But Senate Republicans have basically conceded that they have no role in appropriating funds anymore. That is now the president's job. James Madison is probably rolling over in his grave. (V)

What Does "Election Day" Mean?

Today, the Supreme Court will do its little part to carry out one of its Constitutionally mandated duties: suppressing the vote. It will hear a case from—of all places—Mississippi, which is trying to make it easier to vote. The RNC is trying to make it harder. RNC vs. the state of Mississippi. Got that?

At issue is a Mississippi law that allows mail-in ballots postmarked on or before Election Day but which arrive up to 5 days later, to be counted. The RNC's point of view is that "Election Day" is election DAY, not, election WEEK. Initially, a lower-court judge upheld the Mississippi law. Then a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the state law is invalid, despite the fact that states run elections. The state appealed to the Supreme Court and the hearing is today. The case is important because many states have similar laws.

What is not clear is who would be helped by banning ballots that arrive late. After a slow start, many red states now encourage absentee voting and many seniors, who skew Republican, use it. So it is possible that a ruling that any ballot arriving after the polls close must be shredded might help the Republicans or hurt them. We are not sure. The RNC probably isn't sure either, but it knows that Donald Trump opposes absentee voting, so it knows which side it is supposed to take. The DNC is on the side of Mississippi. Politics makes for strange bedfellows. (V)

---

Previous report         Next report

---

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

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

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

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger