Trump Addresses Nation, Says Nothing

In an unbelievably short (for him) 19-minute speech yesterday, Donald Trump addressed the nation about the war in Iran. He didn't make any news or say anything that he hadn't already said. There are takeaway pieces at NYT, AP, Reuters, The Hill, and Fox News. Here are our notes.

• Why?: The thing Trump had to do is explain why we are at war with Iran. He didn't. People will put up with hardships during a war if they believe the war is justified. Trump keeps shifting the reason for this war. He still hasn't given a clear and coherent answer. So the speech failed to do the most important thing it needed to do: Explain why we are at war with Iran.
  
  
• The End: Not only did he not explain why the war started, but he barely addressed how it will end except saying that will be soon. But he didn't even explain what the exit strategy is. Will it keep going on until Iran surrenders, which is not going to happen? Will it keep going until some unknown goal is achieved? Most likely it will keep going until the U.S. has exhausted its entire stockpile of munitions, something that Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping will surely celebrate.
  
  
• Miniwar: He compared the length of this war with WWII, the Korean War, and Vietnam. The point is that this one is so short it barely matters. That is not likely to comfort the families of the 13 dead soldiers or the people paying a lot more for gas now.
  
  
• Nukes: One of the many reasons he has previously asserted for going to war is to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. But he essentially conceded that there is no way the U.S. can get rid of Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium, so at best Iran's march to a nuclear weapon has been delayed by a couple of years.
  
  
• Hormuz: He said that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is not his problem. It is other people's problem and they have to solve it. Of course, the reality is that if world oil prices shoot up to $150/barrel or more, U.S. prices will, too. Also, the U.S. imports a lot of fertilizer from the Gulf, and its price will go up, raising U.S. food prices.
  
  
• Gas prices: He lamented gas prices going up, but that was Iran's fault, not his. Besides, they will go down soon. Actually, if the war goes on a few more weeks, oil production in much of the Middle East will have to stop because there is no place to store product anymore. Restarting production after hostilities cease will take weeks at best and months at worst. Gas prices are not coming down any time soon. The average hit $4.06 yesterday.
  
  
• Obama: Dumping on Barack Hussein Obama is a standard part of every Trump speech. He made up a story that Obama withdrew $1.7 billion in cold hard green cash from banks in Virginia, Maryland and D.C., put it in an airplane, and flew the actual cash to Iran. Will even hardened Fox viewers swallow this?
  
  
• NATO: Some people were expecting Trump to use the opportunity to withdraw from NATO. He didn't do it or even mention it. All bark, no bite, as usual. Maybe some of his staff told him that withdrawing from a treaty would require the Senate to go along with it. Or maybe someone told him that withdrawal would send gas prices even higher.
  
  
• America is great: The main takeaway is that America is great under Trump and don't you forget it.
  

Trump seemed old, tired, and bored the whole time. He also appeared to have trouble reading the teleprompter at times. It is doubtful the speech will have much effect, although oil spiked to $106/barrel after the speech and stock market futures tanked.

Democrats certainly were not impressed. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) tweeted: "Has there ever been a more rambling, disjointed, and pathetic presidential war speech? Donald Trump's actions in Iran will be considered one of the greatest policy blunders in the history of our country, failing to articulate objectives, alienating allies, and ignoring the kitchen table problems Americans are facing." Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut argued that "anyone watching that speech has no idea whether Trump is escalating or deescalating the war with Iran."

Republicans who are scared of their shadow cheered Trump on. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told Sean Hannity: "He defined the end state, he set the objectives early on, we're inside the 10-yard line and he's telling Iran how this movie ends." Of course, none of that is even vaguely true and Graham knows it, but Fox viewers don't care. Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Hannity that Trump laid out his case clearly. He knows better than that. Is Pompeo trying to get a gig on Fox?

Not even all Republicans were enthusiastic. Marjorie Taylor Green tweeted:

I wanted so much for President Trump to put America First.
That's what I believed he would do.
All I heard from his speech tonight was WAR WAR WAR.
Nothing to lower the cost of living for Americans.
Nothing to reduce our near $40 trillion in debt.
Nothing to save Social Security, which goes bankrupt in just a few years.
Nothing to lower the cost of insurance.
Nothing to address jobs for Americans.
Nothing about education for our children.
Nothing about our children's future.
Nothing for America's future.
I'm so beyond done.
I pray for our military and their families.
I pray for innocent people all over the world.
I pray for peace and prosperity for all.

So basically, Shakespeare predicted this speech 400 years ago: "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." (V)

Trump Signs XO to Restrict Absentee Voting to People in a National Database of Citizens

Voter-suppression season is upon us and Donald Trump is working hard on it. On Tuesday, he signed an XO ordering the U.S. Postal Service to deliver absentee ballots only to people on a list of "allowed" voters to be compiled by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration. That means if Trump wants to block certain voters—for example, in "suspicious" (i.e. "blue") ZIP codes—all he has to do is order DHS not to include them on the official list of approved voters. What could be easier? Marc Elias, a top Democratic election lawyer, is already writing the brief for his lawsuit. Chief Justice John Roberts, a top Trump supporter, is wetting his pants because he doesn't want this to land in his lap, which it is certain to do.

It is hard to think of something more illegal than this, although we get another 7 months to try. First, the states run elections. It says so in the Constitution. The president does not play any role in elections (although the vice president has a cameo in presidential elections). Congress has a limited role, but it can exercise that power only by passing laws.

Second, there is nothing in the Constitution or federal law which restricts absentee voting to people on some list concocted by DHS. Third, XOs are orders to executive branch agencies. The USPS is an independent agency managed by a board of governors. It is not clear whether XOs even apply to the USPS because it is not part of any cabinet agency. Elias will have plenty of material for his brief.

But there is more. The XO freezes the voting list 60 days before an election. That would seem to mean voters cannot request an absentee ballot within 60 days to an election, even if state law, which governs elections, honors requests much closer to Election Day. In Arizona, for example, requests for an absentee ballot can be made up until 11 days before an election. While federal law can override state law, XOs cannot override state law.

Richard Hasen, a law professor at UCLA and one of the country's top election law experts, has a blog post on the XO. Among other things, he writes: "The President does not have the authority to do this. He cites two federal voting statutes and the part of the Constitution that says that the United States shall guarantee to each state a republican form of government. These sources do not give him authority to force states to change their election rules."

In addition, it is not even clear if this XO would help the Republicans if implemented. Trump has a fantasy in his head that Democrats use absentee voting and Republicans don't. That used to be true, but COVID changed that. Many red states now encourage absentee voting. Two groups that use it heavily are older voters, especially those with mobility issues, and rural voters, who may live many miles from their designated polling stations. Both groups skew Republican.

Then comes the biggest problem: When politicians sign an XO or pass a law, they think they are done. The USPS processes over 370 million pieces of mail/day. It is not set up to recognize which mail is an absentee ballot, scan the bar code on it, and then look it up in some government database in real time, and reject the mail if it isn't in the database. This project might require new hardware and certainly will require new software. Trump's buddy, Larry Ellison, Executive Chairman of Oracle, would probably be pleased to have his guys write the software for the low, low price of $100 million. The security and privacy issues here are legion and not addressed at all in the XO. Suppose, for one thing, the giant government database of all voters, which will be bigger than the database of current Social Security recipients, could be hacked? Or copied onto a thumb drive by, say, some DOGEy? Hmmmmm... (V)

A Test of Trump's Clout Is Coming Up Soon

What is Donald Trump's real source of political power? In the end, it is his ability to order his cult to vote for candidates he endorses and have them faithfully do it. Without that power, he couldn't order members of Congress to jump and have them immediately say: "How high, your majesty?"

Trump has endorsed candidates in multiple races. If they win their upcoming races, that will put the fear of God Trump in Republican candidates and officials across the country. That means his power is intact. However, if they lose, other Republicans are going to notice that the king is losing his grip. On power, that is. His grip on reality is another matter entirely.

There are two key tests coming up next Tuesday. First is the runoff for Marjorie Taylor Greene's seat in northwest Georgia, including Rome and some of the Chattanooga suburbs. The district is R+19 and heavily Trump country. The candidates are the Trump-backed Clayton Fuller and Brig. Gen. Shawn Harris (ret.). Harris is Black; the district is 70% white, 12% Black, and 12% Latino. It is also 57% blue-collar. Trump got 70% of the vote here in 2024. If Fuller wins by 19 points, all is well and good in Trumpland. Even if he wins by 10 points, things are fine. If Fuller's margin is under 10 points, though, that will set off alarm bells for Republicans.

Also on Tuesday is the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. It will not determine the "partisan" balance of the court, but if the Democratic-aligned candidate wins, replacing a Republican-aligned candidate who is retiring, Democrats will have a 5-2 margin, which will take them through the 2028 election, unless some Democrats die or resign unexpectedly. Unlike last year, Elon Musk is staying out of this one. If the Democrat wins by 10 points or more in this swing state, that will certainly be an omen.

On May 5, Indiana holds its primaries. Trump is furious with the state legislature because it refused to redraw the map and give the Republicans two more House seats. Trump-backed forces are trying to unseat all the state senators up this year who voted against drawing a new map. They are making the entire election about loyalty to Trump.

On Saturday, May 16, a more direct test will come in Louisiana, in which the Republicans will decide if they want to keep Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who has prostrated himself at Trump's feet, or replace him with Rep. Julia Letlow (R-LA), Trump's favorite. Cassidy, a physician, was the deciding vote to confirm Robert Kennedy Jr., against his better judgment. Cassidy's sins were: (1) hesitating to vote for someone he knows is completely incompetent and (2) refusing to recant his vote to convict Trump on his second impeachment. There is a third candidate in the race, so there could be a runoff between Cassidy and Letlow. Trump has also endorsed Blake Miguez for Letlow's House seat.

The biggest indicator will come on May 19, when the Republican voters in KY-04 decide if they want to keep Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who has been a real thorn in Trump's side. Trump is giving everything he's got to defeat Massie. The war in Iran could play a role here, since Massie opposes it. If Trump has achieved a stunning victory in that nation, Massie will look foolish. But if it is an ongoing disaster and gas is near $5/gal, Massie will be able to say: "I told you so."

Also on May 19 is the Georgia primary. Two races stand out there. First is the GOP Senate primary. Trump hasn't endorsed there yet, but he hates Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA), who has endorsed Derek Dooley, a college football coach in Tennessee. This implicitly means Trump prefers one of Reps. Buddy Carter (R-GA) or Mike Collins (R-GA). He hasn't endorsed either one (yet) because he doesn't know who will win and doesn't want peach egg on his face. In the race for governor, Trump has endorsed Lt. Gov. Burt Jones (R-GA), who is competing against Georgia SoS Brad Raffensperger (R), whom Trump hates with a passion because Raffensperger refused to "find" 11,780 votes for Trump in 2020. Also in the race is healthcare executive and millionaire Rick Jackson, who is spending big time and who could force a runoff.

A week later, on May 26, is the Texas runoff between Ken Paxton and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). Trump has not endorsed there because the base wants Paxton but the Senate Republicans do not want a corrupt fire-breathing lunatic in their ranks. (V)

Supreme Court Hears Case on Birthright Citizenship

With Donald Trump in attendance, at least seven of the folks in black robes seemed skeptical about his executive order on citizenship. Trump's XO would deny citizenship to a child born in the U.S. if neither parent is a U.S. citizen or green card holder. Standing in Trump's way is the Fourteenth Amendment, which grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." All parties agree that the language is based on the English common law concept of "jus soli" or "right of soil" that recognized citizenship by virtue of birth in the territory.

The other obstacle is the only Supreme Court case to have definitively addressed the citizenship question under the Fourteenth Amendment. In Wong Kim Ark, the Court held that children born in the U.S. to foreign nationals, even those present unlawfully, are citizens, full stop.

This case is at the Court in an unusual and complicated set of circumstances, involving a series of injunctions and emergency requests from the White House for stays of those injunctions. The upshot is that we're still technically on the shadow docket but the Court at least has the benefit of a merits briefing.

The government's position seems to hinge on an expansive reading of the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Solicitor General John Sauer argued that phrase requires parents to be "domiciled" in the U.S. and to intend to remain here permanently in order for their U.S.-born children to qualify for citizenship. The Justices seemed understandably hesitant to adopt a rule that seems so unworkable in practice. As Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked, "Are pregnant women to be brought in for depositions to determine their intent?" Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett wondered what to do when a child's parentage is unknown.

In addition to those practical questions, the Justices were also dubious of Sauer's legal arguments. Sauer asserted that Congress' use of the phrase "not subject to any foreign power" in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 means that children of foreign nationals who can be subject to another country's laws don't qualify for birth citizenship. He argued that phrase is analogous to "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," and so must mean the same thing. If so, it would mean that citizenship does not convey to the children of such people, unless they can demonstrate domicile in, and allegiance to, the United States. However, Associate Justice Kavanaugh pointed out that when later statutes amending the CRA were passed, which was after the Wong Kim Ark case, Congress used the same wording as the Fourteenth Amendment. This signals that Congress agreed with the Court's interpretation of that clause, which only recognized a limited number of exceptions: diplomats, Indian tribes, and those in occupied territories. Foreign ambassadors, for example, are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Sauer also made what was essentially a policy argument that the Fourteenth Amendment should be read narrowly to address "birth tourism—people who come to the U.S. simply to give birth so their child is a U.S. citizen." But when he was questioned by Associate Justice Gorsuch as to his evidence of the scope of this alleged problem, Sauer admitted that he had none. And Kavanaugh pushed back that the Court is not called on to address policy, only to interpret the Constitution. On the whole, Sauer was arguing that the president and Congress have the authority to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment to exclude all manner of categories of people from U.S. citizenship based on murky concepts like "domicile" and "allegiance." The Court seemed reluctant to adopt such a stark departure from established law and precedent. Only Associate Justice Samuel Alito seemed fully on board with the president's action.

By contrast, Cecillia Wang, National Legal Director of the ACLU and arguing for the plaintiffs, had an easier time of it. She argued that "domicile" was irrelevant under the English common law on which the Fourteenth Amendment is based, and, thus, precludes a parental domicile requirement for citizenship in the United States. She was questioned on why the word "domicile" appears so often in Wong Kim Ark if it's irrelevant to the holding. She said that the case was presented with certain stipulated facts, including the Wong family's efforts to establish domicile in the U.S. But the holding of the case specifically states that domicile is irrelevant under the plain language of the Amendment. She reminded the court that, historically, children of temporary sojourners were citizens, as were the children of Chinese immigrants who were unwelcome and whom Congress was actively trying to exclude; she also pointed to the children born in Japanese internment camps who are undeniably U.S. citizens.

Alito asked about an Iranian citizen who is subject to mandatory military service and whether their children born here are U.S. citizens. Wang said "yes," and that if the test is whether another country believes a person is also subject to their laws, that would exclude children of all foreign nationals, whether they claimed domicile here or not. She also addressed the question of whether immigration issues were debated at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was passed or whether, as the government argues, it was solely about overturning the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision to ensure that the children of slaves would secure automatic citizenship. She reminded the Court that some senators were concerned that the amendment would encourage "Gypsies" to come to the country to give birth and that it would cause a "mass flood of Chinese immigrants." One senator responded, "Yes, and I am voting for that because I want children born here to be citizens." Even the Know-Nothing Party, who believed the Irish to be "unassimilable" believed Irish children born here should be citizens. Wang persuasively argued that the framers had an "aversion to inherited rights and disabilities." They specifically rejected the French approach of "jus sanguinis" or "right of blood," where citizenship is determined based on parental ancestry. Instead, they adopted the English common law of "jus soli" to eliminate just such a caste system.

Wang's bottom line was that the narrow exceptions to automatic citizenship by birth are "closed" exceptions. Neither the president nor Congress has the authority to add to that list. Congress can grant citizenship to more people but can't contract those rights. The Fourteenth Amendment is the floor below which the federal government cannot go.

Finally, Justice Kavanaugh asked whether the Court can simply find for the plaintiffs on statutory grounds—that the XO conflicts with the 1952 law—and not get into the Constitutional issues. In a response that drew laughter from the gallery, Wang said simply, "Yes." She then said that they would prefer that the Court put the other issues to rest also and reaffirm Wong Kim Ark, but that they would take the win however they can get it. A decision is expected by the end of June.

On Trump's attendance today, our take is that it looks an awful lot like an attempt to intimidate the Court, and is disrespectful of an independent branch of government. No president has ever attended a Supreme Court oral argument, and that is because they didn't want to give even the appearance of trying to affect the outcome or of having a vested interest in a particular decision. So, it's hard to interpret Trump's attendance as anything but an effort to put his thumb on the scale. This can only backfire. If any of the justices were wavering on this issue, they surely aren't anymore. They will not want to be seen as having caved to overt pressure from the President.

Other outlets seem to largely agree with our assessment of the argument, including Politico and The New York Times. (L)

Trump's Allies Release Mass Deportation Plan

Yesterday a group of Trump's allies, joined as the "Mass Deportation Coalition," released a mass deportation plan. It is different from the current one because it focuses on raiding workplaces and capturing undocumented workers while on the job. It is modeled on President Eisenhower's odiously named Operation Wetback, which hit peak deportation in 1954 by removing 1.1 million people to Mexico. Here is a photo of one of the deportation trucks:

The big problem is which industry to tackle. If Trump, for example, goes after the banking industry, he probably won't find many undocumented immigrants working at banks. But if he goes after farming and construction, he will find a lot. Suppose ICE goes to a farm and ICEmen ask all the workers "papers, please?" or worse, just inspect each worker to see if he has brown skin, and if so, they toss him in the deportation truck with no warning and no due process. When the truck leaves, the farmer will discover he has no workers left. Who will plant or harvest the crops, muck the stalls, and do other farm work? All of a sudden the farmer, who probably voted for Trump, will be facing ruin. He might not like that so much. Same holds for contractors at construction sites. In other words, some of the industries likely to be targeted are small businesses whose owners voted for Trump and are suddenly facing the end of their business. Hiring Americans may or may not be even possible, and best case is that they are available but will demand much higher wages.

Another target is meatpacking plants. The work there is difficult, dangerous, unsanitary, poorly paid and emotionally draining. However, it differs from farming and construction in that meatpacking companies are huge conglomerates like Cargill, Tyson, and Smithfield, and have plenty of money to buy off members of Congress and make their wishes known. If Trump goes after meatpacking plants, he will definitely get some negative feedback on that from folks with a lot of clout.

Assuming Trump persists and does what the Coalition wants, the effect will be higher prices for vegetables, houses and meat. Voters are likely to notice that. Trump has to decide whether deporting a million people a year is worth the blowback he will get from the voters in November. Of course, after the midterms, he doesn't care what the voters want because that will be J.D. Vance's problem or Marco Rubio's problem in 2028, not his problem in 2027. Certainly, you know very well what Stephen Miller is whispering in Trump's ear right now. (V)

House Republicans Have Declared War--on Senate Republicans

Even though Republicans control both the House and Senate, they are far from being on the same page on everything. Especially on funding DHS. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) made a deal with the Democrats to get a funding bill for DHS, except ICE, through the Senate. It was a struggle, but he did it. Then the House killed it. Thune was not happy. He was even less happy when Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) called the bill a "joke." Johnson was unhappy because the ICE funding was not there (because Thune didn't have the votes for that). Johnson is also angry that he was not consulted before the Senate vote. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) wasn't happy either. He went on Fox News and said: "Our speaker is very unhappy. I'm not happy... What the Senate did was, frankly, not right."

Thune, for his part, defended the bill as getting nearly all of the government funding without giving the Democrats what they wanted. He was proud of that. Over in the House, even rank-and-file members were unhappy. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) said: "The Senate right now is just having issues with stepping on rakes left and right."

Then suddenly and unexpectedly late yesterday, Donald Trump changed his mind again and greenlighted the Senate bill he had previously opposed. Consistency is not his thing. Johnson immediately cheered for the bill he had called a "joke." The bill funds all of DHS except ICE and CBP and can be passed by the regular order now, maybe as soon as today.

What the administration is now planning is a second budget reconciliation bill to fund ICE and CBP and get it done by June 1. The problem is that many senators and congress critters want to stuff the bill with stuff that will fail the Byrd bath. Trump wants to stuff the SAVE America Act in there as well, which Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough will never accept. If that bill is budget only, the trick might work, in which case Democrats will get none of what they wanted. Republicans could have done this 2 months ago and avoided the shutdown altogether, but with a mercurial president who changes his views on bills daily, that was simply not feasible.

There are other bills floating around where the chambers disagree. One is the SAVE America Act, which would make voting more difficult by requiring documentary proof of citizenship to vote, something over 20 million eligible voters don't have and can't get easily. The House passed the bill, but the votes for it aren't there in the Senate, and firebrands like Luna are telling the Senate what it should do. Senators tend not to take direction from House members, especially not backbenchers like Luna, who recently said: "The Senate is absolutely, just totally incompetent." (V)

Trump Has $300 Million Socked Away

One of Donald Trump's political slush funds—MAGA Inc.—has a $300 million warchest. The big question is how Trump will use it in the midterms. In particular, Trump controls the money and his decisions how to spend it might not align with what is best for the Republican Party. Think about a Republican House incumbent in a swing district who has been somewhat critical of Trump because that is what he needs to survive. Will Trump fund him over a true-blue (OK, true-red) firebreathing Trumper in an R+15 district? One Republican operative said: "There have been no smoke signals. I've heard a lot of people freaking out."

MAGA Inc. spokesman Alex Pfeiffer wasn't about to let the cat out of the bag. He said: "While MAGA Inc is committed to retaining and building the GOP majorities in the House and Senate, we are not in the habit of sharing our battle plans with the opposition through their co-conspirators in the legacy media." So far, all the group has spent is $18,000 for Clay Fuller for MTG's House seat. One Republican operative said, "What is it going to be used for? Everyone's asking that question."

One possibility is to toss a big chunk of change into the Virginia referendum to adopt a new congressional map, which will cost the Republicans 3-5 seats. Rep. Jen Kiggans (R-VA), one of the people who will be unemployed on Jan. 3, 2027, if the new map is adopted, said: "We welcome any and all support from all levels." Surprise!

What Republicans are worried about is Trump using the money in a very inefficient way. He could dump tens of millions of dollars into the race to defeat Thomas Massie in an R+18 district that the Republicans will win no matter who wins the primary. The RNC would never waste a penny in such a district, but Trump could blow tens of millions because he hates Massie. Many Republicans are worried that Trump will blow much of the money on grudge matches to defeat individuals he hates, even though the seat is in no danger for the party.

Another thing Trump might do is hoard the money. After the midterms, he becomes the lamest of ducks and Republicans in Congress might start to ignore him, big time. To prevent that, Trump might keep much of the money in the pot to be able to threaten House and Senate Republicans in 2027 and 2028. The RNC's nightmare is seeing much of the money go up in smoke in 2026 and 2028 as Trump uses it to settle scores in states and districts that are in no danger of going blue, but where Trump wants to punish some Republican he hates. And once Jan. 2027 rolls around and members start feeling independent, he might hate quite a few of them. (V)

Schumer Has Become an Issue in Senate Primaries

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is coming under fire from many directions. He is 75 now and increasingly under pressure from younger Democrats who think he doesn't have much fight left in him. In fact, he has become a campaign issue, with some Democratic Senate candidates vowing not to vote for him for leader if they are elected. Running for the Senate against the leader of your party is something new.

Senate candidates Mallory McMorrow (MI), Graham Platner (ME), and Juliana Stratton (IL) have all said they will not vote for Schumer as the leader of their caucus if they win. Some other Democratic Senate candidates have not taken a position on who they will vote for if elected. In this category is Senate candidate in Texas James Talarico. He said if he wins, he will sit down with all the leadership candidates and see what their plans are. Even some sitting senators, like Andy Kim (D-NJ), have waffled on how they will vote in Jan. 2027. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), who is a generation younger than Schumer at 52 and seen as a potential leader if Schumer doesn't have the votes, has been coy about his future plans in the Senate.

Much of the griping about Schumer has concerned his caving to Senate Republicans on various bills, such as one that kept the government open in March 2025. Many progressive Democrats wanted him to shut the government down and then blame the Republicans since they have the trifecta and are thus responsible for governing. Since then he has been a little tougher, for example, not caving on ICE.

While Schumer has been taking a lot of flak from the left online for not being feisty enough, he has handled the job of Senate candidate recruitment well, getting his top-tier candidates in Alaska (Mary Peltola), Ohio (Sherrod Brown), North Carolina (Roy Cooper) and Maine (Janet Mills). All of those states are potentially flippable if there is a gigantic blue wave. (V)

Wisconsin Appellate Judges Say They Have No Authority to Change the Map

The Republican-controlled Wisconsin state legislature produced some of the most gerrymandered federal and state maps in the country. The federal map is 6R, 2D, with all the Democrats crammed into two districts, WI-02 (D+21) and WI-04 (D+26). And remember, Wisconsin is probably the most equally balanced state in the country, so Democrats should logically have four of the eight seats. The state legislature is also gerrymandered, but not quite as much as the U.S. House delegation.

Democrats sued, claiming the maps violated the state Constitution. Last November, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that two three-judge panels had to look into the matter. On Tuesday, one of the panels decided that it didn't have the authority under the state Constitution to draw new maps and hit the ball back into the state Supreme Court's court. Democrats control the state Supreme Court 4-3 and after next week's election could control it 5-2. The question, however, is whether the top court will act fast enough for the midterms. After all, candidates need time to file and then have primaries. It seems doubtful now that the maps will change before November 2026, but could change before 2028. (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