Birthright Citizenship Survives (For Now); Campaign Finance Laws and Trans Rights--Not So Much

The Supreme Court finished its term yesterday, unloading the three remaining decisions on its docket. None of the decisions is going to gladden the hearts of liberals.

First up is the biggest decision of the day, and probably the whole term, namely the Court's ruling in the birthright citizenship case Trump v. Barbara.

Before we explain the outcome, let us remind readers of the context here. The United States has granted jus soli citizenship (a.k.a. birthright citizenship, or citizenship conveyed by virtue of having been born in the U.S.) for its entire existence. That tradition extends, in fact, to the colonial era, and is common among "New World" countries. This is because children back then were often born to parents of different nationalities, and/or to parents whose "paperwork" was somewhere between "thin" and "non-existent." Granting citizenship based on place of birth made things a lot tidier.

In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution. Its purpose was to convey citizenship to Black Americans, nearly all of who had been born in the United States, and nearly none of who had been born to citizen parents, since enslaved people could not be citizens. The fellows who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment chose their words very carefully, beginning the text thusly: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

That qualifying clause, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," was crafted to exclude three types of people. The first was Native Americans (who were later folded into the mix, by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924). The second was children of diplomats, who are citizens of the country their diplomat-parent represents. The third was the children of invading armies (something that has never actually been an issue, though in 1868 they just couldn't be sure).

It is worth noting that the two latter groups, whose legal status has not changed since 1868, are very clearly not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, up to and including that they are not subject to American law. If John Diplomat Jr. assaults an American, then he is going to be tried under the laws of his country, by the courts of his country. If John General Jr. assaults someone, then he is going to be tried under the laws of his country, by the courts of his country (assuming he is tried at all). By contrast, if John Immigrant Jr. assaults an American, he is going to be tried by a U.S. court under U.S. law, because he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Beyond the basic logic laid out here, we know exactly what the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment intended because we have records of their discussions in the halls of Congress, not to mention drafts of the earlier versions of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nonetheless, back in the late 19th century, xenophobes tried to latch on that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" bit to argue that if someone is born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents, that person is subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' country, and so is NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This interpretation was put to the test in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). In their decision, the Fuller Court—the exact same court that had ruled 18 months earlier that segregation was fine and dandy—said that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes only Natives and the children of diplomats and soldiers, and that everyone else born in the U.S. is, and always been, a citizen.

Barbara, then, is 21st century xenophobes taking a bite at the apple that eluded 19th century xenophobes. And the decision should have been the easiest 9-0 slam dunk in recent memory. But that is not how this Court works. And so, the decision was actually 6-3 or 5-4, depending on how you count, to retain birthright citizenship.

The five justices who voted for the status quo are Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett and the three liberals. The three justices who supported Donald Trump's "right" to eliminate birthright citizenship are Associate Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas. The vote that can be counted either way is that of Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who concurred in part and dissented in part. He agreed with Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas on the key issue, that the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey citizenship to everyone born in the United States. However, he agreed with the majority that Trump's executive order was not lawful. Kavanaugh's reason for thinking so is not that Trump violated the Fourteenth Amendment, but instead that the President ran afoul of 8 USC 1401(a), which was adopted by Congress in 1952.

The obvious implication here is that if Congress passes a law stripping birthright citizenship, then that law will have at least four votes from the current Supreme Court. If they write the law just right, maybe they can peel off a fifth. Alternatively, if Republicans can replace one of the three liberals with a dyed-in-the-wool conservative, then that could be the fifth vote.

Just in case anyone currently leading the Republican Party missed the point, Thomas and Alito went to great pains to write out marching orders. Roberts' majority opinion is 7,801 words. By contrast, Alito's dissent is 11.594 words, while Thomas' is a staggering 27,477 words. Click on the link above to read them; they are a blow-by-blow rundown of the various (mostly racist) arguments against jus soli citizenship, like "these people aren't truly loyal to the United States" and "birthright citizenship encourages 'birth tourism.'" The two dissents also clue conservative lawyers in on what legal arguments they should be making, including that Kim Wong Ark actually supports the conservative point of view.

Oh, and as a bonus, on Monday, reporters noticed that Thomas was paying a visit to Capitol Hill, a place that Supreme Court justices should not often need to be. The Justice refused to explain why he was there, but pointedly demurred when asked if he was there to meet with anyone. A few Republicans claimed Thomas was there to see the House physician, which is... odd, if true.

In any event, whether they followed the trail of bread crumbs laid out by Alito and Thomas, or they got there on their own, the leaders of the Republican party have figured out that the next front in this fight is ostensibly the halls of Congress. Donald Trump got on his white-makes-right social media platform and sent this out:

The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President, that has now been determined during this process. No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary! Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship. They will have my Complete and Total Support! President DONALD J. TRUMP

And Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), speaking to reporters after the decision was announced, added this:

I will say, I'm very disappointed in that outcome. I think it subjects the country to serious challenges going forward, and we'll have to deal with it as Congress... Birthing tourism, they call it: A trend where people come and you just come on to the soil and have your child and then they're able to avail themselves of the welfare state and everything else.

With Johnson, of course, you can never be sure how much he is saying what he really thinks, and how much he is just performing for his boss at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Politically, the immediate question is how this will affect Trump's interactions with Congress. There is already an existing bill that would eliminate birthright citizenship; it is the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025, and was introduced in the House by Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX) and in the Senate by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC). There is no chance of this legislation becoming law, in part because there are at least some Republicans who would oppose it and in part because it would never overcome a filibuster. But let us imagine that Trump and/or some of the Freedom Caucusers begin to treat the Birthright Citizenship Act the way they have been treating the SAVE Act—"If Congress doesn't pass this NOW, we are taking our balls and going home!" It could grind things to a halt (and see below for more), and could also force a lot of members into very uncomfortable votes.

The slightly less immediate, but still pretty immediate, political question is what the Democrats do with all of this. Last week, a poll from Quinnipiac found that 70% of Americans support birthright citizenship. Perhaps more importantly, people who are themselves birthright citizens, or who are family/friends of birthright citizens, will be very motivated to protect birthright citizenship. Will the Democrats start pointing out: "Birthright citizenship is one Supreme Court justice, or a few filibuster-hating senators away from going the way of the dodo"? Could be effective.

One last thing. The right-wing media was, by and large, enraged by the Barbara decision, and they have reached something of a consensus as to who the real villain is here. Megyn Kelly, who once tried to develop a reputation as a fair-minded moderate, derided Barrett for "constantly" siding with the liberals. The Daily Wire's Matt Walsh slammed the Justice as a "DEI Hire." Soon-to-be-former Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) said Barrett should be removed from the Bench. Interestingly, Roberts has voted against the right-wing position more times this week (and this term) than Barrett has. Wonder what the difference is between them? Hmm....

The second decision of the day, meanwhile, was in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission. With that oh-so-familiar 6-3 vote, breaking down along the usual ideological lines, and Kavanaugh writing for the majority, the Court overturned its own decision, in 2001's Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee. As a result, political parties will now be allowed to coordinate openly with candidates for office.

As with Citizens United, the majority concluded that this was fundamentally a First Amendment issue, and that limits on party-candidate coordination are a violation of donors' free-speech rights. Why they weren't a violation of free-specch rights 25 years ago was not explained. Kavanaugh further observed that if the political parties are weakened, it "distort[s] the political system." Because if there's one thing we can all agree on, it's that the two political parties that have had a near-total duopoly on power for the last 165 years or so just aren't strong enough.

Boiled down to the nitty-gritty, before yesterday, it was the case that a person wanting to support a candidate could give $3,500 per election to that candidate. Most successful candidates go through a primary and a general election, for a total of $7,000, or if there's also a runoff, the total is $10,500. Now, it is the case that a person wanting to support a candidate can give the candidate that $7,000/$10,500 and can also give their political party close to half a million dollars more to potentially spend on that candidate.

If you are someone who wants well-off Americans to have less influence in politics, then this decision is bad news. However, it remains to be seen exactly how impactful it will really be. Note the following:

• The half a million dollars (which Associate Justice Elena Kagan mentions in her dissent) breaks down as follows: $44,300 annually to the national party's main account, $132,900 annually for presidential nominating conventions, $132,900 annually for recounts, $132,900 annually for party building, $10,000 to their home state's party committee and $10,000 to their local party's committee. That adds up to $463,000, which is indeed within spitting distance of half a million dollars. However, there are obviously constraints in how the money can be used (for example, the donations toward the nominating convention can't be used to support a Senate candidate). And while a donor can earmark SOME of their donation for a specific candidate, they can only donate that almost-half-a-million once per year. So, if, say, a guy named Melon Usk says he wants $163,000 of his donation to go to Ivana Beah Senata (R-TX), and another $300,000 to go to Kenny B. President (R), then that's the end of the line, and Melon Usk can't funnel six figures to 20 other candidates through the party.
  
  
• The money that will be funnelled through the parties is, by and large, not going to be "new" spending. It's going to be money that was already going to super PACs, and that will be directed to the parties because that might give the donor more control and more favorable terms.
  
  
• Speaking of more favorable terms, the likeliest way that will happen is if the parties are given candidate ad rates, which are much cheaper. But it's unknown, at this point, if broadcasters will grant that boon. Even if they do, it's not clear that even MORE commercials will make that much of an impact.
  
  
• While some chunk of campaign spending will now be a bit more "coordinated" (and, by the way, a bit more transparent), nobody seriously thinks there wasn't already significant coordination going on between campaigns and political parties and super PACs. That coordination was, by and large, legal and was done through hints and other intimations, but it definitely has been happening.

At the moment, the RNC has considerably more money in the bank than the DNC. So, the popular prediction yesterday was that, in the short-term, the Supreme Court's decision will benefit the Republicans more than the Democrats. That may be true, though we'll soon see if the DNC's hauls pick up, given the new spending environment. It is also the case that 100,000 small donors tend to be more useful than 100 fat cats, since the small donors can give again and again. And, thanks in no small part to Act Blue, the Democrats are far better situated with small donors than the Republicans are. The overall point here is that we'll have to take a "wait and see" approach before we reach any firm conclusions about how impactful this decision really is, and exactly who is helped by it.

And that, finally, brings us to the third decision, which addressed two cases, one from West Virginia and one from Idaho, namely West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox. This decision broke down along—wait for it—partisan lines, with Kavanaugh writing for the 6-3 majority.

The finding here, which was the most predictable of the day, is that trans girls do not have the right to play girls' sports. Kavanaugh and the five other conservatives concluded that, for Title IX purposes, the word "sex" refers to biological sex assigned at birth. Ipso facto, if you were a declared to be a boy when you were born, you are a boy for Title IX purposes, and so cannot claim sex discrimination if you get kicked off a women's team.

Advocates for trans rights noted a couple of silver linings in the decision, which just so happened to come down on the final day of Pride Month. The first is that the Court did not strike down Bostock v. Clayton County which means that sexual orientation and gender identity remain protected classes for purposes of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The second is that the Court did not bar trans girls and women from competing in girls' and women's sports, which means that those states that want to allow such participation are allowed to continue doing so, at least for now.

That said, the Supreme Court nonetheless gave the green light to anti-trans discrimination in education. In red states, schools from kindergartens through universities are going to crack down on trans girls'/women's participation in sports, and are also going to insist that trans students of both male and female varieties use the "correct" restrooms, as indicated by the gender on their birth certificates. Meanwhile, schools in blue states and communities will try to hold the line, but will undoubtedly face lawsuits from both private individuals (students and parents), and possibly from the federal government. This will also give the Trump administration more leverage in its phony quid pro quos, where the White House insists that [school X] turn its back on trans students, or else [funding Y] will be canceled. This is a semi-phony quid pro quo because part of the point is to cancel the funding and part is to feed red meat to the base. The trans part merely serves as a convenient way to make that happen, and a good way to get voters—even many independent left-leaning voters—angry.

Back in 1944, in the Korematsu case (also decided 6-3, incidentally), there were a trio of fiery dissents, from Associate Justices Frank Murphy, Robert H. Jackson, and Owen Roberts. The overarching theme of the three dissents, addressed to the justices' six colleagues, was, "You people are nuts, and history will judge you harshly." That trio did not live to see themselves proven right, as all three had passed away by 1955. These days, the equivalent trio is Kagan, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Jackson's pretty young, at 55, and some of the decisions unspooled this week are considerably more out of step with middle America than Korematsu was. We would not be surprised if the most junior justice lives long enough to enjoy a satisfaction that eluded Murphy, Jackson and Roberts. (Z)

Congress Remains Dysfunctional, Thanks to Donald Trump

Last week, Donald Trump threw a temper tantrum and refused to sign the bipartisan housing bill passed by overwhelming majorities of both chambers of Congress unless the SAVE Act is also passed. The President has described the housing bill as a "yawn" and says he doesn't care if it becomes law or not. That's just fodder for Democratic campaign ads, at this point, because it's going to become law if he takes no action. The House was still meeting up through today, and both chambers are holding pro forma sessions, primarily to stop Trump from ramming through a few real nutters as recess appointments. So, an un-overridable pocket veto is off the table. Trump could try an actual veto, but he'd probably be overridden, which would be embarrassing.

That does not mean that Trump, and some of his enablers in the House, are giving up on the SAVE Act, however. Given that the housing bill has already passed, their next target is the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Republicans love the military, and this is their opportunity to lavish the Department of Defense with cash, to the tune of over $1 trillion. It is somewhat hard for members of Congress to vote against the NDAA, because then they get accused of hating soldiers, mom, apple pie, etc., and being willing to make America less safe.

Still, there's only so much leeway there. In an effort to thread the needle, Mike Johnson tried yesterday to pull off some parliamentary sleight of hand. The trick he tried to use is called MIRVing, wherein two bills are passed separately by the House, but are then merged into one bill before being sent to the Senate. Lord knows why he thought this would work, but what actually happened was that Senate Democrats voted against the maneuver because they will not support the SAVE Act (even if that also means voting against the NDAA), while a bunch of hard-right Republicans voted against the maneuver because they know it would be easy for the Senate to just dump the SAVE Act stuff and pass the NDAA by itself.

So, Johnson's attempt to pull a rabbit out of the hat failed 198-224. The hard-right Republicans are also blocking any other legislation from coming to the floor. With no particular hope of a quick resolution, Johnson sent his Conference home for the July 4 holiday. They won't be back in Washington for 2 weeks.

Trump, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) and the rest of the crazypants brigade can flex their muscles all they want, but as we've written a hundred times, there's just no way the SAVE Act can get through the Senate. It might not even be able to get through the House (again) at this point. And even if it did somehow pass, even supporters of the bill, such as Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS), concede there's probably not enough time to implement the bill's provisions, even if it passed immediately. And, of course, "immediately" definitely won't be happening, since both chambers are in recess until mid-July.

Will Trump and the MAGA Militia bow to reality, and decide this is a fight best left for another day? It would certainly make life easier for Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) if they would do so. That said, passing SAVE also wasn't realistic multiple months ago, when Trump started his current crusade, so why would he change course now? And if, as we note above, the President adds passing the Birthright Citizenship Act to his list of obsessions, then the celebrations of July 4 might prove to be nothing more than an anemic preview to the kind of fireworks we'll see once Congress is back in session.

One other quick note before we leave this subject behind. Rep. Tom Kean Jr. (R-NJ), who is one more vote in support of whatever Johnson puts on the floor, was back at work yesterday. He explained that he was being treated for severe depression. Good on him for being honest, and for getting the treatment he needed. That pretty much makes this a non-story going forward, since he can hardly be faulted for his absence. That said, if he was willing to tell the truth anyhow, why did he wait so long? That made a mountain out of what could and should have been a molehill, and put a lot of people, including Kean's colleagues and staffers, in a tough position. Part of the price of public service, unfortunately, is that you don't always get the right to privacy that private citizens do. His district has a PVI of EVEN and Democrats have to be careful about this, but his opponent is surely going to make a point about how he or she is there 100% for the district, no ifs, ands, or buts. (Z)

A Good Night for the Left in Colorado

Normally, this would be the lead item. But the Supreme Court decisions were too big to relegate to anything other than the first spot. And then, the shenanigans in Congress are really a complement to that, since the SAVE Act, the Birthright Citizenship Act and the other key legislation could end up joined at the hip. So, the Colorado primary results get to be third. Sorry, Colorado.

Let's start at the top of the ticket. Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) need not cancel his lease in Washington, because he's going to be staying in the Senate. In the Democratic gubernatorial primary, he was easily bested by the somewhat leftier AG Phil Weiser, with the AG taking 55.7% of the vote to Bennet's 44.3%. On the Republican side of the contest, the GOP has a good chance of avoiding the two crazypants candidates. At the moment, with 88% reporting, the most sane of the three Republicans, state Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer, has 39.99% of the vote. The killer Cajun karate kid, Victor Marx, has 39.61%. The pedophile-ring-obsessed state Rep. Scott Bottoms is out of the running, with 20.4%. None of these three people is going to be elected governor, but if the GOP can avoid Marx, then they won't be at risk of the whole Republican ticket getting dragged down.

And now, the race that everyone is talking about. There is zero chance that the D+29 CO-01 is going to flip, but the progressive and 68-year-old Rep. Diana DeGette (D) was challenged by the even more progressive, much younger (29), and much more staunchly anti-Israel lawyer Melat Kiros (D). Kiros won in a walk; 51% to 42%. Does this speak to lefty Democrats' desire for generational change? Or their increasing dislike of the nation of Israel? Maybe both. As we have noted, many people on the right (and maybe some on the left) will try to make Kiros the face of the entire Democratic Party. More thoughts on that subject in the next item.

The other Colorado House race that had Hillary vs. Bernie undertones was the one in the EVEN CO-08. There, incumbent Rep. Gabe Evans (R) found out that he will face the leftier of his potential opponents, state Rep. Manny Rutinel (D). Rutinel is also quite young (31), though he's not particularly focused on Israel. He's also Latino in a district that is 38.5% Latino. Hard to know what carried the day for him, but it was a rout, as he took 61.5% of the vote. Rutinel will certainly give Evans all he can handle.

There are two other Colorado House districts that are (barely) in swing territory. CO-03 is R+5, and is represented by Jeff Hurd (R), who is running for reelection. He will face off against U.S. Army veteran Dwayne Romero (D), who easily won his primary with 54.9% of the vote. Romero is running on affordability (which is already in contention for 2026's word of the year) and on various land-use/environmental issues that play well in Colorado.

Meanwhile, CO-05 is also R+5, and is represented by Jeff Crank (R), who is also running for reelection. Crank's opponent will be Jessica Killin, who took an impressive 62.6% of the vote in her primary. Killin is, like Romero, a veteran. Unlike Romero, she used to work on the Hill as a congressional staffer. Her main issue—and you surely didn't see this coming—is affordability. She also wants to secure lots of money for the Space Force and for the Air Force, a position that might have something to do with the fact that CO-05 includes Colorado Springs (home of the Air Force Academy, and former home of the Space Force Command).

And finally, this is a little bit out of order, if we consider rank, but Sen. John Hickenlooper (D), who is fairly moderate and very boring, fought off a younger (74 vs. 43) and more progressive challenger in state Sen. Julie Gonzales (D), 55.3% to 44.7%. So, the young, progressive challengers were not successful in every race yesterday. And now, Hickenlooper can join Bennet in renewing his lease in Washington, since state Sen. Mark Baisley (R) has no meaningful hope of winning the seat. Every race rater has it as "Safe D" or "Solid D"—whichever one that particular rater uses to indicate "Sorry, nothing to see here."

There isn't going to be too much election action for the next few weeks, unless you happen to be deeply invested in whether or not Shady Cove, OR, Mayor Lena Richardson (I, but really R) gets recalled next week. The next big elections are the primaries in Arizona on July 21. (Z)

Enough with the Hand-Wringing and Pearl-Clutching

Last week, three House candidates backed by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D) won their races. There was much rending of garments and gnashing of teeth from both Democratic operatives and from the media, with the general theme that "the right-wing media is going to have a FIELD DAY with this."

Perhaps the most ridiculous media piece we saw came from Mediaite's Alex Griffing. Under the headline "NYC Democrats Just Hobbled Their Party in National Elections for Years to Come," he writes:

[Darializa Avila Chevalier's] primary victory is an undeniable watershed moment in the Democratic Party, raising the question of just how far to the extreme left it will swing as a reaction to Trump's reelection and chaotic second term. Chevalier's general election campaign and likely November win will serve to only further divide Democrats, lurch the party toward a nationally toxic extreme, and give the GOP a boost at a moment when it desperately needs one.

While not quite as extreme, there were plenty of other media reactions like this (see here, here and here for a few more examples).

As to Democratic operatives, the most eye-rolling of those responses probably came from the well-past-his-sell-by-date James Carville, who decreed that Chevalier "is not a Democrat" and that she should not be seated as part of the House Democratic Caucus when she (inevitably) wins her race. Carville went on to explain that the Democrats are the party of pluralism and inclusiveness. It would seem he thinks the best way to be inclusive is... to exclude some people. For other examples of Democratic operatives losing their minds, see here, here and here. Note that all of this coverage was prompted by what happened in New York last week; undoubtedly there will be another wave of stuff like this today, following the victories of Melat Kiros and Manny Rutinel in Colorado yesterday.

At this point, we would like to pause and remind everyone of two Civics 101 lessons:

1. The fellows who wrote the Constitution deliberately set things up so that communities could, by and large, elect representatives to Congress that reflect that community's outlook. George Washington, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin & Co. knew full well that a district in rural Georgia would favor a very different type of representation than a district in downtown New York City. This was a feature, not a bug.
   
   
2. The fellows who wrote the Constitution also set things up so that the most extreme representatives (and Senators) can't accomplish much of anything. They might be able to drag their party a little bit leftward or rightward, but they basically have to fall in line or else be left out. If there are any doubts on this point, consider how much luck Anna Paulina Luna, et al., are having getting the SAVE Act passed. And that is WITH the enthusiastic backing of the sitting president.

And now, let us make two observations about present-day political dynamics:

1. It is true that Fox and other right-wing outlets are going to try to turn these various left-wing Democrats into cartoon villains; that was happening before the elections even took place. The ostensibly non-right-wing media does not need to legitimize that propaganda, or to give it more oxygen, by talking endlessly about it. Let Fox, Newsmax, OAN, etc. do the work themselves.
   
   
2. Any Democrat running for office in a swing district needs to find a way to credibly and convincingly say, "A candidate in a deep-blue district a thousand miles from here does not speak for me." If a candidate cannot succeed at this, they have failed Politics 101 and do not deserve to be elected.

We recognize that none of us who produce this site lives in a district where a moderate Democrat is likely to be derailed by talk of the scary brown liberal running for office halfway across the country (or where a moderate Republican is likely to be derailed by talk of the scary Nazi-curious fascist running for office halfway across the country). So, perhaps we are speaking out of turn.

That said, we do know two things. First—and it was true in Colorado last night as well as in New York and elsewhere—primary votes from voters 18-34 are up across the country. Maybe if these lefty candidates are getting young people to the polls—and for primaries, no less—that will compensate for whatever moderates are lost to Fox propaganda. Heck, it may even presage a realignment.

Second, we recall reading a bunch of "Oh, noes!" stories in 2018, when Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) was elected. And the right-wing media certainly did their level best to turn her into a villain on the order of Satan, or Darth Vader, or the Chicago Bears. And you know what happened in 2020? The Democrats won the trifecta.

By the way, not all of the media disagrees with us. For example, here's CNN's Bakari Sellers:

NYC election results have lessons to be learned but Mamdani is not the "face" of the Dem party and NYC is not indicative of a larger pattern.

A few months ago yall were telling us nyc was swinging right now it's not?

The fastest rising 2028 contender is a Jewish Dem from Georgia. And DSA got mollywhopped all throughout the south. Facts.

And here's Slate's Jim Newell:

[Avila Chevalier's win] is not the end of the world for national Democrats, as candidates in difficult races should have no problem stating they don't support her when asked. Besides, Republicans have a bit of a cry-wolf problem here, in which they've been calling any and all Democrats "communists" for so long that the public may yawn once someone approximating the real thing comes around. What could be a problem is if Democrats nationally get in their heads that this sort of candidate is a replicable winner across the board, when she essentially could have won only in this specific city with its well-organized Democratic Socialists of America. Indeed, with Mamdani as mayor and New York's old political machines broken down, DSA wants to become New York City's new establishment. But we will believe it when Queens and Staten Island go DSA.

What it amounts to is that our view—and we are clearly not completely alone on an island here—is that there are a fair number of political pundits and Democratic operatives who need to recall the lesson of Chicken Little, and to stop declaring that the sky is falling when the evidence does not yet support that conclusion. (Z)

Political Bytes, Local Edition: New York

A few more reader comments about last week's elections in New York:

R.M. in New York City, NY: It is not apparent from the high-level results being reported, but Israel was potentially the deciding issue in NY-12, just as it was in many other NYC primaries. There was a large field of candidates beyond the four mentioned in your summary. Alex Bores' position was to stop providing offensive weapons to Israel, but he declined to take a stronger stance, as he knew that this district includes probably the most Zionist Democrats in the country, Bores tried to thread the needle. The problem for him is there are also a handful of folks on the other end of that position living in the district. And many of those folks voted for Nina Schwalbe who, called Israel's actions a genocide. Schwalbe pulled in roughly 7,300 votes and Bores lost to Micah Lasher by 4,300.

Our Take: When you try to be all things to all people...

---

J.M. in Chicago, IL: Thank you for you breakdown of the recent New Yawk Primary elections. I'm writing about the potential Democratic split you mentioned, a product of the ongoing aggression by Israeli's Government and Military.

I capitalized those words because it seems to me that is a path forward for Deze Dems. The stunningly wonderful letter written by the Iran National Soccer Team illustrates what I, and so many others (including yuze at Electoral-Vote.com) know; there are no/or few issues between the people in different countries, only the governments and/or militaries, who whip up hatred and controversy to advance their agendas, or protect their budgets/graft, or distract from real problems and the documents showing their close association with a sex trafficker/pedophile.

So, instead of casting a wide Anti-Israel net, why can't Democratic candidates say they support the People of Israel, and Israel's defense, but they do not, and will not, support the aggression and slaughter of Palestinians, Lebanese, or any other civilians, by Israel's Government and Military? Is that too nuanced for voters to follow?

Our Take: It apparently was in 2024. Perhaps not in 2026.

---

D.A. in Brooklyn, NY: Although The New York Times is already painting the successes of the DSA candidates as the work of "Mamdani the kingmaker," the truth is more complex. Each of the congressional DSA candidates excelled at "retail politics." For example, early on I received a personal phone call from Claire Valdez, who talked to me like a politically astute, caring next door neighbor. I continued to receive steady communications from her. Brad Lander, who was already well known as a two-term NYC comptroller, had already demonstrated his progressive credentials by not once but repeatedly showing up at immigration court, monitoring and protesting ICE gestapo tactics and in one case being arrested for alleged interference.

My union invited the candidates from the competitive congressional races to show up and speak to the membership. Lander's opponent didn't even bother to show. To his credit, Rep. Adriano Espaillat (the 5-term congressman defeated by Avila Chevalier) did show, but was utterly lackluster, and could present no vision beyond bringing a bit of pork to his district. By contrast, Chevalier was bursting with passion and clarity—speaking of concrete measures that were a mix of the aspirational and the attainable with a Democratic majority in Congress. She also spoke to the deep fury so many of us have at not only the Trump administration, but an establishment that includes centrist Democrats.

Valdez, while not as passionate, and much smoother and wonkier, was also full of policy specifics. Her opponent, term-limited Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso, was practically tongue-tied. He couldn't name one accomplishment (or initiative) in 4 years of being Borough President. (OK, it's mainly a bullsh** position, but he has the bully pulpit: he could have opposed ICE visibly, or pushed back against the political firing of CUNY faculty, etc.). Nor could he outline a legislative agenda. The best he could do was tell us "I love you all."

Yes, Mamdani was an important factor, but these are anti-incumbent times and Chevalier, Lander, and Valdez were all top-notch candidates. I was not surprised that they won.

Also, lost in all the Mamdani-as-Kingmaker hoopla is the interesting fact that months ago, early on in the primary process, Mamdani put the kibosh on a DSA-backed candidate challenge to Jeffries. Given the success of the anti-incumbents yesterday, Jeffries, who is no fool, must be silently thanking the mayor. Or maybe not silently. I wouldn't be surprised if he expects to collect from Jeffries for that huge favor. And perhaps Mamdani should, in light of that, be thought of as the "King-Protector" instead of the "Kingmaker."

Our Take: There's going to be an excellent book written about the NYC politics of this era, one of these days.

---

J.E. in Manhattan, NY: I will bet that a lot of New York Times columnists are going to clutch their pearls at how the "far left" in New York has done (and how well!). As I am writing this all the candidates Zohran Mamdani endorsed—Brad Lander, Darializa Avila Chevalier and Claire Valdez—have won their races.

There's a lot of significance, in my opinion, that Ariano Espaillat lost to Chevalier. Espaillat himself replaced Charlie Rangel, and Rangel represented a certain kind of politics in New York City; an ability to bring projects home coupled with a level of corruption that people tolerated because of the pork. Espaillat's election was exciting at the time because the then-new district boundaries set in 2010 created a 55% Latino district, but while far less corrupt than Rangel was, he was still rather traditional in the way he worked in Washington. Clearly the dissatisfaction with incumbents has even extended to intra-party elections.

Micah Lasher's victory (a race in which there was no real "progressive" standard bearer) shows that there's a real change in the way Democrats are voting; NY-12's district boundaries got moved in a way that at first blush I'd have expected the primary race to not even include the likes of Bores or Lasher. (And Jack Schlossberg showed everyone his unseriousness. He got about 11% of the vote, and I don't think we will see him in electoral politics again for a bit.)

I'd say that if nothing else, the results suggest that the Democratic rank-and-file has moved to the left of the state and national leadership, at least in the districts around here. Now, I know that a lot of people say "Oh, that's New York," as though New York was some other planet, but New York City is a lot more representative of the country generally than Iowa is. This doesn't mean the Democratic Socialists of America are going to elect candidates all over the country. But I wonder what the future of Democrats looks like in other large cities. There's a level at which the Democratic leadership has accepted the terms of debate set by Republicans and the right, and I would hope that is changing.

As a historical note: Many of the things Zohran Mamdani proposed during his campaign, and that are marks of progressives in New York City—free pre-K, for example, free tuition at CUNY, better funding for libraries, reining in the police—were all (in concept at least) once backed by people like John Lindsay, who was a Republican when he started his political life here. The fact that Democratic Socialists are running on the same policy positions as a Republican once did shows just how far the political discourse in the U.S. has moved rightward.

Our Take: One is reminded of Harry S. Truman's famous observation: "Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years. Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security. Socialism is what they called farm price supports. Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance. Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations. Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people."

---

M.S. in New York City, NY: As a lifelong New Yorker born in Rochester, educated in Buffalo, and residing in Manhattan, I take issue with your characterization of the center of New York State as "New Yorkalina."

It is, of course, Newyorklahoma.

Our Take: We stand corrected.

Thanks to all of you. We are always happy to have local reports from readers (particularly from readers in Colorado this week). Send them to comments@electoral-vote.com.

Never Forget: The Cost of Empire

Today, we hear from M.B. in Granby, MA:

In 1861, Henry King made the long journey from Enfield, CT, to Yuba City, CA, where his brother had settled a few years earlier to cash in on the Gold Rush. Had Henry stayed home in Connecticut, he likely would have enlisted with a local regiment to fight the Confederacy in the South. Instead, he signed up with the 2nd California Volunteer Cavalry, which was formed to safeguard overland mail routes and transcontinental telegraph lines.

A family genealogy from the early 1900s credits Henry with "very efficient service in the campaign against the hostile Indians in Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, and Dakota." The most notable engagement of that campaign occurred at Bear River in what is now southeastern Idaho. By all accounts, it was a brutal, merciless, military action.

To reach Bear River, the 2nd California marched 140 miles from Fort Douglas at Salt Lake City. The mid-winter conditions were severe. The snow was 4 feet deep. In the subzero weather, their fingers froze and their rifles jammed with ice. Dozens of the soldiers suffered frostbite so severe they lost fingers, toes, and feet. Nonetheless, they were able to surround the enemy and attack at dawn.

The Bear River Massacre is now considered the deadliest attack on Native Americans in U.S. history. An estimated 450 Shoshone were killed—the vast majority of them were women and children.

The 2nd California Volunteers had mustered to replace the regular army that went to fight in the Civil War. Instead of preserving the Union, they massacred hundreds of Indians who stood in the way of Western expansion.

Henry Albert King was my great-great-grandfather. I have no idea of what he thought of his three years in the Union army. Perhaps he was proud of his service. His obituary notes his membership in the Grand Army of the Republic, a fraternal organization for Civil War veterans.

If he told any stories about his combat experiences, they were never passed down. Aside from his claims of Native American ancestry, his son had nothing to say about Indians.

Thanks, M.B. (Z)

---

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