Happy Earth Day!

Virginia Wrestles with Redistricting

Let us start this item with this note from reader P.F. in Goldvein, VA:

I wanted to write in with my experience voting in-person in my precinct this morning. We were there early, around 7:00 a.m., and it was almost deserted. I was informed that I was voter number 25 in our polling place. In last year's gubernatorial election, around the same time of day, the parking lot was full to bursting and there was a small line waiting to vote. I have read that early voting enthusiasm was on pace with the early voting for last year, but the in-person voting seemed depressed, at least in my rural precinct.

I was very torn about the referendum. As a state, we passed the 2020 amendment to form a bipartisan committee to determine congressional districts (with special masters actually making the map when the committee got stuck), which has turned out to be reflective of the voters of the Commonwealth. We currently have 6 Democrats and 5 Republicans in Congress which is a breakdown pretty similar to the recent presidential elections:

Year	Democrat	Republican
2024	52%	46%
2020	54%	44%
2016	49%	44%
2012	51%	47%
2008	53%	46%
2004	45%	54%

We are now a slightly bluish-purple state, represented by two Democratic senators since 2008, but also electing two Republican and three Democratic governors in that same timeframe, as well as swapping control of the House of Delegates and state Senate multiple times. So the current district design seems to be fairly representative of the state.

Switching to a very gerrymandered 10 D, 1 R Congressional representation seems like a major step backwards for us. But with the current Trump administration pushing for Republican-led states to silence any dissenting voices, our Democratic General Assembly leaders pushed this amendment to the Virginia voters. I did not like it, I do not feel it is fair, and I feel like it will result in Republican gains at the state level in 2027.

What finally pushed me to vote "Yes" on the amendment was not any love for the proposed gerrymandering, however, but instead the ridiculous amount of spam text messages I have received from the "No" camp and the numerous "Vote No!" yard signs in my conservative area. Apparently, "Trump" signs are currently a bridge too far with most of the Republican voters in my area, but they will use this election as a proxy of their love for him. And I needed to again cast my vote against Trumpism.

We received, formatted, and edited this letter at about 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday. In other words, we deliberately set this up as the lead-in to this item before knowing anything about the outcome of the vote. P.F.'s response makes clear something that is present in other letters we have run, and in various op-eds and social media posts we've seen: This is a very tough choice. Most importantly, it pits good governance against potentially reining in Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans. Most Democrats and independents, and some Republicans, want both of these things. But, in this election (and this era), they can only have one or the other.

Then, add in some of the other elements of the equation, like the unrelenting (and often dishonest) media blitz Virginians have been subject to, the possibility of a backlash in 2026, 2027 and/or 2028, the fact that "10 D, 1 R" is an aspiration and not a guarantee, and the realization that none of this might mean anything if the courts decide the proper procedure was not followed. Point being, the only outcome here that should be a surprise is a lopsided one in either direction. Following from that, we think we are on solid ground in asserting that the dynamics here are so different from a candidate vs. candidate election that one cannot consider the outcome to be predictive of... much of anything.

And now, we commence with the portion of this item that we wrote after we learned the results. As the polls very accurately predicted, the outcome was indeed close. But, once the dust had settled, the measure passed, 51.5% to 48.5%. Assuming the courts decide the process was kosher, then a fair guess is that this will net about 3 House seats for the Democrats.

We may learn a bit more, once the numbers are complete, and there's been time for a bit more crunching. However, there are two things that already leap out. The first is that rural voters showed up to vote in unusually high numbers, while the urban vote was more restrained. This is presumably because those rural voters suspect they are about to lose representation in Congress, and because the GOP's get out the vote operation was heavily focused on the rural-dwellers. Again, we do not believe this election is predictive. But if any reader thinks otherwise, then this would be a welcome trend for the GOP.

The second thing that is evident is that, despite some shifts on this issue, Democrats clearly still use early/mail-in voting more than Republicans do (at least, in Virginia). The 10% of votes that were mail-in broke 72% to 28% in favor of redistricting. the 30% of votes that were early in-person votes broke 52% to 48% in favor of redistricting. The 60% of votes that were Election Day in-person votes broke 54% to 46% against redistricting. As a result of this, "No" appeared to be headed for victory for the first hour or two after the polls closed. But then the early/mail-in votes were added, and that put it away for "Yes."

As we have noted a few times, this might be the final 2026 performance of the Cirque du Gerrymander. The only other state that might give it a whirl is Florida; Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) has called a special legislative session for later this month. The problem is that Florida is already pretty aggressively gerrymandered, and the only real option to make it more so is to give some Republican House members smaller margins of error. In view of what's happened in the various special elections this year, many members of the red team are nervous about turning R+10 districts into R+5, or R+5 districts into R+3. So, the legislature might well tell the Governor: "Thanks, but no thanks." After all, the governor is concerned about the national political implications of the map. The members are concerned about keeping their own jobs. (Z)

Notes on the State of California

Now that Eric Swalwell is out of the way, the coast is clear for billionaire Tom Steyer to try to buy the governorship of California. It is not unheard of for billionaires to become governor of a state. Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) is a billionaire. The former governor of West Virginia, now-Sen. Jim Justice (R-WV), is also a billionaire. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, yet another billionaire, was formerly governor of North Dakota. Steyer has already spent $115 million in broadcast ads, with more to come. This is much more than all the other candidates combined, and by a large margin.

Steyer is not the first person to spend a lot of money running for office in California. Rick Caruso spend over $100 million running for mayor of Los Angeles in 2022. Meg Whitman spent $179 million running for governor in 2010. Both of them lost. However, both of them are Republicans, and California is a very blue state. In contrast, Steyer is not trying to get Republicans to vote for him. He is trying to convince Democrats that he is the best Democrat running. That is much easier.

Although many Democrats hate billionaires and think they have too much power and influence, in terms of his stated policy positions, Steyer is a pretty generic, center-left Democrat. Or he was, at least. His campaign website lists eight issues he is running on:

• Build one million home you can afford.
• Lower electric bills.
• Stop masked ICE agents from terrorizing Californians.
• Ensure health care for all Californians.
• Close corporate tax loopholes.
• Provide free education from pre-K to college.
• Defend the climate and environment.
• Make sure all Californias benefit from AI.

Readers might be able to infer Steyer's strategy from that rundown. He very clearly thinks that the progressive lane is up for grabs, and he's making a play for it. There is not a lot there that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) would object to, except maybe he might prefer blocking AI rather than focusing on making it benefit everyone. Steyer's commercials, which are on TV constantly (see: $115 million and counting) lean into this even more aggressively. It's not a crazy thought; the only "true progressive" who has made a dent is Katie Porter, and some lefty voters are not sold on her bona fides, while others find her personally unlikable.

We've written a few times that the revelations that ruined Swalwell came in the midst of a Steyer-funded anti-Swalwell ad blitz. Consequently, more than a few people put two and two together, and speculated that Steyer was behind the revelations. Reader S.C. in Mountain View, CA is pretty dialed in, and reports that it just isn't so:

Back on April 13, when (V) & (Z) first wrote about the news that the Swalwell campaign was unraveling, they remarked that "there is some scuttlebutt that the information that brought Swalwell down came courtesy of the Steyer campaign." However, they did not link to any stories or social media posts that contained or referenced that scuttlebutt. Not that this is the reason why they didn't, but apparently that scuttlebutt wasn't true.

According to this Politico story, the information that brought down Swalwell was collected by two social media posters—Arielle Fodor (also known as "Mrs. Frazzled") and Cheyenne Hunt—and an unnamed friend of Hunt; they then referred the women who contacted them to CNN. (On The Media did an interview with Melanie Mason, one of the authors of the Politico story, that I highly recommend. It's the first segment of the April 17 podcast.)

At best a political consultant by the name of Mike Trujillo (no, not THAT Mike Trujillo), who formed a Super PAC to support former Assembly Speaker and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's campaign for Governor, played a small role in the unraveling. But as far as I can tell Tom Steyer's campaign did not provide the information that led to Swalwell's downfall.

Full disclosure: I am active with the California Democratic Party (CDP) and was able to talk directly to two Gubernatorial candidates, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and former Board of Equalization member and former State Controller Betty Yee at the recent CDP State Convention in Sacramento. I was impressed by both of them, but I know Betty better (she was supportive of my starting a Children's Issues Caucus in the CDP decades ago) and would like to vote for her in the primary. However, according to a tracking poll being released every few weeks by the CDP, she's not doing so well. I won't make up my mind until the weekend before the primary, maybe not even until the day of the primary. But if I had to rank them today, my order of preference would be Yee, Thurmond, Porter, Xavier Becerra, Villaraigosa, Steyer, and some of the remaining Democrats (excluding Swalwell) plus the No Party Preference candidates in some order. (There will be 24 Democrats including Swalwell, 12 Republicans, one Libertarian, one Peace and Freedom candidate, and 23 No Party Preference candidates on the ballot.)

Thanks, S.C.!

As chance would have it, about 12 hours after we got S.C.'s report, Yee officially reached the end of the line and dropped out. She chose a curious strategy, in that her politics are progressive, but her message was "slow and steady governance." She even took to calling herself "Boring Betty." Problem #1 here is that progressive voters prefer dramatic action, not "slow and steady governance." Problem #2 is that nearly all Democrats in California hate Donald Trump, and want someone who will poke him in the eye on a regular basis, the way that Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) does. So, Yee not only failed to catch fire, she actually bled support among the voters who have previously supported her (most noticeably, Asian Americans). Yee's fundraising was anemic and she was barely registering in polls. That's a very bad combination, and so she's done.

Since Yee was polling at around 1%, her exit doesn't figure to affect the race all that much. There have now been three polls conducted since Swalwell exited the race. And since Trump made his endorsement (of Steve Hilton) before Swalwell imploded, that means the polls took place after that, as well. Here they are:

Pollster	Steve Hilton	Chad Bianco	Tom Steyer	Xavier Becerra	Katie Porter	Matt Mahan
Emerson	17%	14%	14%	10%	10%	5%
Kreate Strategies	18%	14%	16%	10%	10%	4%
Independent Voter News	20%	17%	14%	23%	11%	4%

We've included every candidate who polled at 5% in any of the three polls.

That Independent Voter News poll is the most recent of the three, having been completed on Monday and released yesterday. We pass it along, because we're a full-service site, but we don't like anything about it. We don't like the wonky-looking result, we don't like the name of the pollster, we don't like that we've never heard of this pollster. That said, it is clear from the combination of the three polls that Becerra has some momentum. Is it enough for him to overtake Steyer? Maybe. Californians don't like politicians who try to buy their offices (see above), and since Becerra might consolidate the Latino vote, and some fair chunk of the progressive vote.

The other thing to note, is that Bianco finished in third place in each poll. He finished behind a different Democrat in the first two as compared to the third one, and his third-place finish was by a fraction of a point in the Emerson poll. Still, the evidence continues to suggest that California's unique jungle-primary political gravity is kicking in, and that the state's Democratic voters will not be so foolish as to lock themselves out of the general election. (Z & V)

Cherfilus-McCormick Falls on Her Sword

We will concede that we are not 100% sure if "falling on your sword" only applies to honorable acts of self-sacrifice, or if it applies to any circumstance where a person removes themselves from a situation before someone else does the job for them. We think that the "honorable" part is implied, but is not actually required. In any event, the reason we're thinking about this is that Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL) finally resigned yesterday. She most certainly did not "take one for the team," and held out until just moments before the House Ethics Committee was going to vote to recommend expulsion.

Truth be told, if Cherfilus-McCormick DID want to take one for the team, it probably would have been better for her to dig her heels in, and to be tossed out on her rear by an overwhelming vote of her Democratic colleagues. Then, the members of the blue team could say "See? We police our own, unlike the members of... some political parties." As it is, Cherfilus-McCormick is heading to the door while carping about "witch hunts" and "justice denied" and yadda, yadda, yadda. It's the same basic stuff that Eric Swalwell (D) and, to a lesser extent, Tony Gonzales (R) said when THEY jumped ship before they could be pushed overboard. That certainly makes for a less compelling narrative when it comes to the Democrats (or the Republicans) in the House bragging that they are fighting for truth, justice and the American way.

Meanwhile, it can't be too often that three members all resign in the same week, all in a cloud of scandal. We suspect three (or more) in a week sometimes happens when numerous members get elected to higher office in November, and need some time to prepare for the transition. And it certainly happened right before the Civil War, when the Southerners seceded. But three sleaze resignations in the same week? Presumably that is a sign that both parties are sensitive to the likelihood that corruption and bad behavior in office are going to be issues in November. The bad news for the GOP is that they've got a guy in the White House for whom corruption and bad behavior is his calling card. So, it's not going to be so easy for them to defang that issue, Gonzales or no Gonzales.

The loss of another Democrat leaves the House with 217 R, 213 D, and 1 R who is cosplaying as an I. That means that assuming Rep. Kevin Kiley ("I"-CA) votes with the party he's still caucusing with, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) can afford two defections on an otherwise party-line vote, and still see a measure pass. That's a pretty slim margin, but it's better than the one Johnson had when the week started.

There is one more (alleged) sleazeball who may soon be on the hot seat, namely Rep. Cory Mills (R-FL). There accusations against him are a veritable "greatest hits" of bad things a member of Congress might do: assault (of his girlfriend), sexual misconduct (he threatened to put revenge porn on the Internet), misuse of official resources, violation of campaign finance laws, accepting special favors in exchange for his vote, etc. Pretty much the only thing he did not do (as far as we know) is try to blackmail Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

House Republicans, from Johnson on down, would prefer not to lose a much-needed vote. They would also prefer not to have this particular conversation right now, given the dynamics of the upcoming election. So, they are going to try mightily to hide behind "Let's let the House Ethics Committee conduct its investigation before we reach any conclusions." Maybe that will work. Or, maybe it won't. In addition to the fact that Democrats are making all kinds of noise, there are several members of the Republican conference who want to see Mills gone, pronto. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) is one of those, and she just introduced a resolution that would toss Mills out by the scruff of his neck. She has the backing of at least some of her colleagues, most vocally Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL).

Under these circumstances, it would not surprise us if Mills survives to November. But it would also not surprise us if he suddenly gets appointed to some important job in the Trump administration, the sort of job that is so important, nobody in the White House actually knows what it is at the time of appointment. And last we checked, there is still no ambassador to Lower Slobovia. Beyond Mills, there do not appear to be any other members in jeopardy right now, though given how fast Swalwell's downfall came, you can never know for sure. (Z)

Political Bytes: Paging Arlen Specter?

Lots of news in the past few days that's not quite enough for a whole item, but interesting enough to merit a mention.

A Crudité Awakening: Punchbowl News did an informal straw poll of House Democrats, to see how many of them are prepared to endorse Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) if he runs for reelection in 2028. And it would seem that Fetterman has the support of 0.0% of them. Pretty much all tried the Switzerland approach when responding to Punchbowl. For example, here's Chrissy Houlahan: "I'm not responsible for deciding whether he runs again." Or Madeleine Dean: "My concern is entirely about him and his health, and I'll let 2028 take care of itself."

Our Take: If Fetterman wants to keep his job beyond January of 2029, pretty much his only option is to become a Republican. It worked for Arlen Specter, so maybe it could work for him. But probably not, as we live in much more polarized times right now. And really, by all indications, Fetterman does not like the job, and seems like he will be happy to be done with it.

---

A Hole-in-One: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) was asked if it bothers her that Donald Trump is playing so much golf while there's a way underway in Iran. She had an interesting response, declaring that she hopes Trump plays even more golf, because when he's out on the links, he can't be in the Oval Office doing harm to the country.

Our Take: A sharp wit is an invaluable tool for a politician (see Lincoln, Abraham; Reagan, St. Ronnie of), and Sen. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez certainly has one.

---

It's Now Unanimous: Alan Dershowitz, who has been toting Donald Trump's water on TV for a decade, has officially re-registered as a Republican, after more than 6 decades as a registered Democrat. He said—wait for it—that it's not him who's changed, it's the Democratic Party. He is, to a greater or lesser extent, a single-issue voter these days, and that issue is keeping the Epstein Files hidden Israel.

Our Take: There was just one person left in the whole country who did not know that Dershowitz had become a Republican at least 5 years ago. Now it's zero people.

---

The Piggy Bank Has Run Dry: DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin announced yesterday that the various pots of money being used to compensate for the fact that DHS has no budget are about to run out, at which point people will go back to working without pay. It is not clear from Mullin's statement if the BBB money for ICE is also nearly exhausted.

Our Take: The linked article says the members of Congress are in a "race to end a two-month shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security." We'll believe that when we see it. Keep in mind that there are four different constituencies here, namely House Republicans, Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans and Donald Trump, and there has yet to be a time when any more than two of the four were in agreement.

---

The Halls of Montezuma: Remember during the 2024 campaign, when Donald Trump (and other Republicans) hinted that an invasion of Mexico might be called for? Well, there's now evidence that one is happening, right under everyone's noses. Over the weekend, there was a car crash in which two Mexican law enforcement officials and two CIA officers were killed. It appears that they were conducting clandestine operations against drug traffickers, and without the sanction of the Mexican government. President Claudia Sheinbaum is furious about this incursion on her nation's sovereignty, as you might imagine.

Our Take: Which neighbor is going to despise the U.S. more by the time Trump's term ends? Canada or Mexico?

---

The Eye of a Needle: A bunch of right-wing Christians are staging an event in which people, including many prominent Republicans, will participate in a reading of all of the books of the Bible. Well, all the books of the Bible that are recognized by Protestants, at least. Among the participants will be devout Christian and noted man of peace Donald Trump, who will read 2 Chronicles 7:14: "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

Our Take: So, Trump's people chose a verse for him in which God is speaking. A little on the nose, don't you think?

---

Islamophobia Über Alles: Texas Republicans are nervous about their new, and possibly ill-conceived, gerrymander. They are also concerned about the U.S. Senate race. And so, they are turning to a "classic" from the Trumpublican bag of tricks: Islamophobia (and, more specifically, the claim that Muslim Americans want to impose sharia law on the rest of the country).

Right on cue, noted bigot Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) introduced a show bill called the Measures Against Marxism's Dangerous Adherents and Noxious Islamists Act. Get it? The MAMDANI Act? He's a clever one, that Chip Roy. The bill, which will obviously never become law, would "deport, denaturalize, deny U.S. citizenship, or entry to any alien who is a member of a socialist party, a communist party, the Chinese Communist Party, or Islamic fundamentalist party, or advocates for socialism, communism, Marxism, or Islamic fundamentalism."

Our Take: He's a vapid show horse who does absolutely nothing but poison public discourse and put innocent people in danger of being targeted by vigilantes. And the worst part is that he is retiring from Congress and running to be Texas' top law-enforcement official and will probably win.

---

MediaBias: The White House website has a new webpage that announces the identity of the "Media Offender of the Week," along with the "crimes" they've committed. The current "honoree" is CNN.

Our Take: We're not sure what part of this is more Trumpy. Is it that he's trying to use the power of the goverment to stamp out freedom of the press? Or is it that everything this administration does is so half-baked, and so lazily executed, that CNN was chosen more than 3 weeks ago, and there have been no additional "Media Offender[s] of the Week" since? Probably should have called it "Media Offender of the Month." Or, if they really wanted to be honest, "Media Offender Who Has Most Recently Put a Bug up Trump's A**."

And there it is, your moment of zen. (Z)

The Trial of the Century... the 19th Century

In view of the decision that will soon issue forth from the Roberts Court, we often get requests to do an overview of the case that is most relevant to this area of law—United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Ask, and ye shall receive.

At the time this case arose, Chinese immigrants were not exactly welcome in the country, despite the fact that they were largely responsible for building the railroads and other infrastructure that were powering the country's growing economy. The Chinese Exclusion Act, enacted in 1882, prohibited people like Wong's parents from becoming naturalized citizens and placed strict limits on their ability to live and work in the U.S.

Undoubtedly, readers know that there was a lot of racism in 19th century America. In the South, that racism was directed at Black Americans. In the Northeast, there weren't too many Black people, and the favored scapegoat was Irish Americans, and later immigrants from southern and eastern Europe. In California, far and away the largest non-white group, at least after the Natives were nearly wiped out, was Chinese Americans. The Chinese were the target of a vicious xenophobic political movement called the Workingmen's Party, and were subject to acts of violence, limitations on civil rights and, ultimately, exclusion. This is the world into which Wong was born sometime around the year 1870.

Everyone agreed on the facts of his case: Wong was born in San Francisco of Chinese parents, who were "subjects of the emperor of China" but permanently "domiciled" in the U.S. at the time of their son's birth. Wong had visited China several times in his teens and early twenties, and was allowed to return to the U.S. on the basis that he was a U.S. citizen. But when he left for China and then returned in 1895, a customs collector refused his return entry to the U.S. on the basis that he was NOT a U.S. citizen.

The U.S. Supreme Court had not yet interpreted the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment's provision that all persons born in the U.S. "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are U.S. citizens, but other, lower courts had interpreted it in other contexts. The Amendment was enacted in 1868, so in 1898, when Kim Wong Ark was decided, the Court had good sources from which to ascertain the framers' intent when drafting this provision.

The Court did an exhaustive analysis of court cases, congressional debates, and English common law. The common thread was that citizenship was conferred by virtue of birth in the country and did not depend on the birthplace of the parents. The Supreme Court couldn't find a single case that was decided differently. The only exceptions, which are encompassed by the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," are children of diplomats, children of foreign occupiers during wartime, and children born of Indian tribes on tribal land. Put another way, anyone who answers to American law, even if they ALSO answer to the laws of another nation or entity, is covered by "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

In its decision, the Court found that the timeline of the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the later-enacted Fourteenth Amendment to be critical. The debates over the CRA informed the language ultimately adopted for the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. During the debates, for example, Sen. Edgar Cowan (R-PA) was incredulous that the California delegation would be in favor of a law that would allow the children of Chinese laborers, who were here temporarily, to be citizens simply because they were born here.

In response, Sen. John Conness (R-CA) replied: 'The proposition before us relates simply, in that respect, to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the Nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States."

Importantly, the Court found that the Fourteenth Amendment is declarative of existing law and imposed no new restrictions on attaining citizenship. And, in its view, existing law recognized citizenship by birth regardless of the parents' birthplace. To reiterate this point, the Court noted that it was accepted that all white persons born in the U.S. of foreign-born parents were U.S. citizens. And the main purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to establish citizenship of those of African descent who were born in the U.S., and had been previously denied citizenship by Dred Scott and a handful of other court decisions. Consequently, the Court found that those rights apply to all races, since the Fourteenth Amendment makes no distinction based on race (with the exception of excluding Native Americans). While the politicians may have been concerned at the time with the Chinese, the Court reminded the parties that it could not consider politics in its ruling, as the decision would affect the U.S.-born children of foreign-born parents from all countries, including Europe. The Court could not base its decision on the race or color of parents.

The Court also found that the Fourteenth Amendment restricts Congress' ability to place limits on this right: "The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power, where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship." The result of the Court's decision is a clear, bright line rule. The default is if you're born in the U.S., you're a citizen, with only narrow exceptions that someone contesting a person's citizenship has the burden of proving.

By contrast, the Trump administration is claiming that the opposite is true—that being born here is just the first step in the process of proving citizenship. It is the position of the administration that a person must also prove that either their parents are U.S. citizens or they had established "domicile" in the U.S. According to Trump, "domicile" means "permanent residence and an allegiance to the United States." But the holding in Wong Kim Ark, which rejected any such tests, simply does not support that argument.

The current Supreme Court has quite the reputation for ignoring past precedent, and trampling on stare decisis. However, to overturn or significantly revise Kim Wong Ark would be to take a sledgehammer to a bedrock principle of American law, and would create all sorts of chaos. During oral argument for the current case, a majority of the justices seemed to agree. If the current chief justice was John Marshall or Earl Warren, they would see to it that if Kim Wong Ark is going to be upheld anyhow, it be done unanimously so as to remove any doubt. But John Roberts is no Marshall or Warren. So, the result that seems most likely here is something like a 6-3 decision. We'll know soon, as we are entering into prime "decision-issuing" season, which generally runs through mid-June or so. (L & 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