Dem
51
GOP
49
Not unexpected, but boy howdy did we get a lot of questions about the ouster of former speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA).
Also, if you are turning yesterday's songs over in your head, it's instructive that two of them come from the same album.
G.R. in Eugene, OR, asks: I could imagine that despite Liz Cheney being a staunch right-wing Republican, and no longer a sitting member of the House, she might garner enough votes to win a speakership election, especially if the Democrats valued democracy over the rest of her ideology. She knows all the players on that side of the aisle. What think you?
(V) & (Z) answer: This was the single-most popular question this week, so we shall answer it first. Nothing is impossible, given the mess the House is in, but we are very skeptical Cheney could get 218 votes. First, she is an archenemy of Donald Trump, and nearly every Republican in the House would be leery of voting for her on that basis. Second, some number of the House Democrats might be able to suck it up and vote for someone to the right of Ronald Reagan, but not the progressive wing. If the Democrats are going to extricate the Republicans from the mess the Republicans have created, the Democrats are going to want someone who is at least somewhat centrist.
S.B. In Winslow, ME, asks: As I reflect upon the years I've followed you, it's been amazing to see the number of political firsts and changes that our nation has experienced. You've written before that the speaker doesn't have to be a House member. While I realize it may be a longshot for such a person, who do you think would be on the list of most likely candidates to take on the task of cleaning up the mess that is the U.S. House of Representatives?
(V) & (Z) answer: Our guess is that the person would have to have relevant experience, would have to be a Republican (since the Republicans are in the majority), and would have to be relatively moderate (to get Democratic votes). The person who best checks the boxes is probably... John Boehner. He's been speaker, he's a Republican, and he's relatively moderate by 2023 standards. None of the other living Republican speakers of the House seem plausible; Newt Gingrich is too divisive, Paul Ryan is an enemy of Donald Trump, Dennis Hastert is a convicted felon and Kevin McCarthy's unpopularity is why we're here in the first place.
If we loosen our qualifications to just looking for a Republican who is reasonably moderate and who has been out of the loop for several years (and thus above the fray), then how about former Indiana governor Mitch Daniels, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, or former senator Kelly Ayotte?
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, asks: Do I understand this correctly? If an accident were to happen to both President Biden and Vice President Harris, the next up to become President won't come from the Republican House but from the Democratic Senate in the form of current President Pro Tempore Patty Murray (D-WA)?
(V) & (Z) answer: Until there is a properly elected speaker, then yes, that is correct.
S.P.S. in Skaneateles, NY, asks: Please clarify circumstances in which the Speaker of the House becomes President, specifically if the speaker is not an elected member of the House. Is that possible?
(V) & (Z) answer: It does not matter if the speaker is an elected member of the House, it only matters that they have been elected speaker by the members of the House. And in that case, if the presidency and vice presidency both become vacant due to death, disability or resignation, then the speaker becomes acting president. Of course this only applies if the speaker is constitutionally eligible. If the House were to elect, say, King Charles III speaker, then Patty Murray becomes acting president.
Note that Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry (R-VA) is not in the line of succession because he was not elected to the speakership by the members of the House.
C.S. in Lancaster, CA, asks: Maybe this is a little out there and conspiratorial, but let's say Donald Trump decides to put the screws on the Republican House members and gets elected Speaker of the House. Do we not consider then that there could be an assassination of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris to de facto put him back in the White House?
(V) & (Z) answer: It is possible, on paper. In reality, it is not going to happen. Trump is not capable of pulling off such a scheme. And even if he was capable (say, he was getting assistance from Vladimir Putin), it would be exceedingly difficult to get to the President to knock him off. And if that was somehow accomplished, the level of security around Kamala Harris would make breaking into Fort Knox seem like a walk in the park.
J.M. in Silver Spring, MD, asks: Several places (including E-V.com) I saw statements about a House rule that forbids a person under indictment (for certain major crimes) from serving in a leadership position. However, the Constitution creates the position of Speaker of the House as it does the Presidency. Since it is considered unconstitutional to add additional requirements to the presidency, would it not also be unconstitutional to add requirements to the speakership?
(V) & (Z) answer: It's actually not a House rule, it's a party rule, though both parties have a version. Here's the Republicans' version:
Rule 26—Temporary Step Aside of a Member of Leadership who is Indicted
(a) A member of the Republican Leadership shall step aside if indicted for a felony for which a sentence of two or more years imprisonment may be imposed.
(b) If a member of the Republican Elected Leadership is indicted, the Republican Conference shall meet and elect a Member to temporarily serve in that position.What it amounts to is that Donald Trump (or any other indictee) is not barred from the speakership, per se, it's that the members of the Republican conference (unless the rules are changed) cannot vote for him for a leadership position like the speakership.
S.C. in Mountain View, CA, asks: It wasn't until I read about Patrick McHenry (R-NC) becoming acting Speaker pro tempore of the United States House of Representatives that I learned from Wikipedia that "the speaker is required to create a secret ordered list of members to temporarily serve as speaker of the House if the speakership became vacant" and provide that list to the Clerk of the House.
While it makes sense to have a succession list, why is it kept secret, and was it always this way?(V) & (Z) answer: The "emergency line of succession" bit is only 20 years old, having been implemented after the 9/11 attacks. As to secrecy, there's no particular reason the general public needs to know the names on the list. Meanwhile, if an evildoer wants to disrupt the functioning of the U.S. government, it would be at least somewhat helpful for them to know exactly which members need to be taken out. So, they err on the side of caution.
F.D. in Ninove, Belgium, asks: I have a question about the GOP congressional sh**storm which seems to have erupted with Kevin McCarthy's ouster and its effects on the (internal) governance and proceedings of the U.S. House.
What do you think are the chances that neither of the factions within the GOP will be able to cobble together a coalition to elect a new Speaker within a decent timeframe or even at all, and that Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry remains in that post for many months to come, or even indefinitely? Under what conditions could he then operate, and which powers does he or doesn't he have to operate effectively vis-à-vis the powers of a "normal" Speaker?(V) & (Z) answer: It is not impossible that he could linger for weeks or months. We even wrote that letting an interim speaker handle the budget might be the Republicans' best chance to clear that particular hurdle.
And nobody really knows what powers McHenry has. One could read the rules as saying his only prerogative is to organize and oversee a new speakership election, and that he has no other authority. The fact that he's not handling any other business right now would seem to support that interpretation. One could also read the rules as saying that he has all the powers and privileges of the speaker, excepting that he's not in the line of succession. The fact that he's re-assigning office space, and that he's been given a speaker-level protective detail would seem to support that interpretation.
Because this situation has never arisen before, and because he is de facto setting a precedent for any future speakers pro tempore, we suspect McHenry will be cautious about his powers for now. However, if the House Republican Conference can't pull itself together, and it becomes necessary for McHenry to adopt a more expansive view of his authority, we suspect he'll warm up to that pretty fast.
J.H. in Lodi, NY, asks: When there is a tight race in politics, I am reminded of an episode of The Patty Duke Show that featured an election. (I looked it up to help my memory. It first aired on November 13, 1963, so only 9 days before the Kennedy assassination.)
Patty and Cathy have both been nominated for president of a girls' organization at school. What starts out as a friendly competition becomes bitter and vicious. Also in the race is a bland girl named Susan whose only words are the sullenly repeated "Vote for me." In the end, Susan wins by a landslide because their schoolmates can't bear to choose either Patty and Cathy over the other.
OK, not that similar to the Steve Scalise (R-LA)-Jim Jordan (R-OH) contest, but will a Susan emerge in the speaker race?(V) & (Z) answer: This is well within the realm of possibility. Clearly, for many members of the House Republican Conference, this is personal. And if that feeling does not subside, then it could be that the only way forward is a candidate who, to each side, is not a "win" for the other side. Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK) and Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK) are potential backups.
K.Y. in Chelmsford, MA, asks: You wrote that Jim Jordan, if elected Speaker, "would drive Democrats to the polls in droves in 2024." But then you implied that it seemed very unlikely for him to get to 218 votes. Would Democrats take the risk of endorsing a divisive, chaotic man like Jordan for the sake of helping themselves become the majority (and Biden becoming reelected) in 2024, knowing that they'd be complicit in making Jordan one of the most powerful men in the government for over a year? If so, then Jordan's road to 218 becomes easy: He would just need 5-6 Republican votes to become Speaker.
(V) & (Z) answer: This will never, ever happen. The Democrats can only run against Jordan if they had no role in electing him. If he gets 100 or 200 Democratic votes, then goes scorched earth, and then Democrats run next year on "Can you believe what Jordan has done?", then the reply will be "Then why did 200 Democrats vote for him as Speaker?"
M.F. in Burlington, ON, Canada, asks: So my own staff mathematician tells me that 210 + 216 = 426, which is less than 435. If my staff researcher is correct, two seats are vacant. That means seven Representatives didn't vote—four Democrats and three Republicans.
I've seen a news report saying Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was in California and would not be voting. Do we know who the other six are? And is there any significance that might be read into their absence?(V) & (Z) answer: It's not too hard to figure out who they are; all House votes are posted to Congress' official website. The non-voters are:
- Pelosi: She was in California for Dianne Feinstein's funeral
- Mary Peltola (D-AK): She was in Alaska handling the aftermath of her husband's funeral.
- Cori Bush (D-MO): She was in Missouri for a medical appointment.
- Emilia Sykes (D-OH): She was in Ohio dealing with a "personal family matter."
- Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL): She was in Florida recovering after having recently given birth.
- John Carter (R-TX): He was in Texas due to unspecified health problems.
- Lance Gooden (R-TX): He was in Washington, and voted in support of McCarthy on an earlier procedural motion, but skipped the final vote and refused to answer questions as to why.
We don't think there's anything, politics-wise, to be inferred from these absences. Some of them could be lying about their reason for not being there, except that all five of the women have said they would have voted to get rid of McCarthy, while Carter has implied he would have voted to keep him. Only Gooden is an unknown, since he won't explain why he skipped out.
If there IS a lesson here, it's that when you have 435 people who have an average age of 58, and who mostly have large family/friend/associate networks, some of those 435 are going to miss work on any given day due to health or personal issues.
J.H. in Boston, MA, asks: In the U.K. and other Westminster style governments, the speaker is a nonpartisan position. This seems like it would be an easy solution to the fragility of the position, given that it was written into the constitution without any regard for partisan realities. Is there any path for the U.S. to transition this to a nonpartisan role?
Also, Kevin McCarthy and his allies are putting some of the blame for his ouster on the Democrats, who voted en masse to vacate. Is this reasonable? It seems like normal order is for each party to support their own candidate, occasionally two or three of their own, but never cross the aisle. Then whichever party has the majority decides speaker and control of the chamber. Has there ever been a speaker who received even a single vote from across the partisan aisle?(V) & (Z) answer: The only reason the Speaker of the House has so much power is that Henry Clay, on assuming the job, decided that he was going to lay claim to a bunch of powers and nobody said "boo!" There are now about 200 years of precedent and custom and rules supporting Clay's vision of the office. However, there is no Constitutional basis for any of it (other than the Speaker being pretty high in the line of succession). So, if the House really wanted to clip the wings of the speakership, it could.
This would not be a panacea, however, as someone has to be in charge, and so someone has to be a focal point for various power struggles. In the Senate, that's the majority leader. If the speakership was cut off at the knees, then it would be the majority leader in the House, too. The reason the House is nastier and more unstable than the Senate is not because of the speakership, but because the House has a larger number of extreme members.
And for McCarthy to place any blame on the Democrats is rich. Imagine if the situation was reversed, and Nancy Pelosi needed some Republican votes 2 years ago to save her job. Do you think she would have gotten them? And her only crime is to be a hardcore Democrat. McCarthy is not only a hardcore Republican, he worked to normalize the worst of Donald Trump's behavior, he participated in efforts to overturn the 2020 election, he launched a despicable "impeachment inquiry" into Joe Biden, he backtracked on promises that he made during the debt ceiling showdown, and he's done nothing to be collegial with his Democratic colleagues or to ask for their support.
It is virtually unheard of a member of one party to vote for a member of the other party for the speakership. What almost always happens is that if a member of a particular party does not like their party's speaker candidate, they vote for some other member of the same party as a protest vote. For example, when Pelosi regained the speakership in 2019, a handful of Democrats voted for Cheri Bustos, Tammy Duckworth, John Lewis, Joe Kennedy III, Marcia Fudge, Stephanie Murphy or Jor Biden.
Indeed, we can't find a single example of a member of a major party crossing the aisle to vote for the speaker of the other major party. The only situations like this involve members of third parties being persuaded to support a speaker from one of the major parties. This is what you would expect, since voting for the other party's speaker candidate would make a person a pariah. Better to switch parties, and be in line for a juicy committee assignment as a reward for doing so.
B.C. in Forest Park, IL, asks: In your item about the biting problems of Commander, the Bidens' German Shepherd, you mentioned that the Bidens' relationship with the Secret Service is not great. One of the reasons you cited for that is that Joe Biden is not Trump.
Considering who Trump is, what he stands for, what he has done, and what he endeavors to do, this is frightening. Could you please elaborate?(V) & (Z) answer: Secret Service officers do not share their views publicly while still on the job, at least not on the record. However, it's widely understood that Trump was more popular with them than Biden is. Part of that is undoubtedly politics; law enforcement in general skews conservative. Part of it is that Trump was more prone to pal around with his protective detail. Part of it, apparently, is that Trump rarely traveled, beyond trips to Mar-a-Lago and Bedminster. That not only made the Secret Service's job easier, it also meant that when on the road, the officers stayed in "luxury" accommodations, since that allowed Trump to charge the government maximum prices.
E.W. in Skaneateles, NY, asks: You and many others have written much about how the media coverage of Trump needs to change, especially from how it was way back in 2015-2016. If the need for change is so well-known, why do you think that coverage of Donald Trump, in particular compared to the coverage of Joe Biden, has not yet changed (enough)?
(V) & (Z) answer: The folks who run the big newspapers and other media outlets are largely the stars of their profession, who worked their way up to being on staff for The Washington Post or The New York Times or CNN after years working for the Akron Daily Herald or the Peoria Journal Star. In other words, they came of age during a different journalistic epoch. And old habits die hard.
In addition, one cannot discount the profit motive. In some cases, that means "we don't want to risk alienating any readers/viewers." In other cases, that means "Breathless coverage of Trump's latest shenanigans sells papers/attracts eyeballs." There's more than a bit of truth in this Saturday Night Live ad from 2020 about people who want Biden elected, but who don't know what they will talk about when and if Trump goes away:
D.L. in Lancaster, WI, asks: The newest accusations against Donald Trump are absolutely alarming! Sharing secrets from classified documents is bad enough. Sharing classified information regarding our nuclear submarine capabilities is downright reckless! Could Jack Smith add an indictment of treason if a grand jury believes there enough evidence?
(V) & (Z) answer: No. Treason would require that the U.S. be actively at war with the country receiving the information. As far as we know, the U.S. is not at war with Australia, even if it's always wise to be extra wary of these Commonwealth nations.
On the other hand, Smith could add espionage to the list of charges... though he probably won't. He's got Trump as dead-to-rights as is possible, and assuming there's no jury nullification or other complications, the punishment for Trump will be substantial, and may well equate to a life sentence. Adding another charge would drag things out without any obvious added benefit.
D.S.A. in Parish, NY, asks: So, if your attorneys "forget" to ask for a jury trial, does that provide grounds for an appeal (further delaying justice) due to incompetent legal representation?
(V) & (Z) answer: Almost certainly not. To make this work, Trump would have to prove that other counsel (i.e., "competent" representation) would have done things differently, and that, but for that error, he would not have lost the case. Since it's not clear that a jury trial would have been "better" for him, or that he was even entitled to a jury trial, he'd never be able to clear the bar he needs to clear. The plaintiff (i.e., the state of New York) would observe that choosing "no jury" was a perfectly reasonable choice, and that many/most counselors would have done the same thing.
M.M. in San Diego, CA, asks: Any chance Georgia's chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union would represent Rudy Giuliani pro bono? After all, everyone has a right to legal representation, even a drunk, broke, skinflint ex-mayor. Or does his case not fall into their remit?
(V) & (Z) answer: The ACLU invests its significant, but nowhere near infinite, resources when the organization believes there is a significant constitutional principle at stake. We don't see what constitutional principle is at stake here; people don't have a fundamental right to commit fraud or to overthrow elections.
P.G. in Berkeley, CA, asks: I studied the Constitution in a couple of seminars in grad school. That was more than 50 years ago and memories seem to fade. In view of the indictment of Sen. Bob Menendez (R-NJ) relating to bribery, I wondered if anything in the Constitution would forbid the Justice Department from investigating and possibly indicting a Supreme Court justice possibly for accepting value in exchange for opinions. I realize that this would be a politically difficult exercise. But if someone were to speak to the FBI (for example), what do you think would happen? I don't see anything in Article III that addresses this issue. Judges certainly do get in trouble with the law just as legislators do from time to time. Anyway just asking, you know, hypothetically. Of course a justice of the Supreme Court would never do such a thing.
(V) & (Z) answer: The FBI can, and does, investigate federal judges who commit crimes. For example, Alcee Hastings was the subject of an FBI sting operation just 2 years after receiving his judicial commission.
The problem is that the link between [benefit X] and [improper judicial action Y] has to be crystal clear, and provable in a court of law. Someone clever enough to become a Supreme Court justice is likely clever enough to blur the lines enough to make a successful prosecution very, very difficult.
R.E.M. in Brooklyn, NY, asks: If the House remains paralyzed, or otherwise holds up further aid to Ukraine, what discretion does the President have to direct the delivery of weapons to Ukraine beyond the current funding law? Is there an emergency declaration or other action he can take allowing him to act?
(V) & (Z) answer: Joe Biden is not willing to ride roughshod over the rules, but he and his staff are pretty good at finding opportunities presented by existing law. Right now, he is looking at some discretionary money that is part of the State Department's budget, and that allows the executive branch to give grants to countries deemed to be in need of American weapons and defense equipment. There isn't enough money allocated to the program to fulfill all of Ukraine's needs, but it works as a stopgap. There's also $650 million left of money that has already been allocated for helping Ukraine.
W.F. in Chambersburg, PA, asks: Given that Republicans were enthusiastic supporters of sending blood and treasure to Afghanistan and Iraq, but are now generally against sending support to Ukraine, and the Democrats generally were/are against the Iraq war, and in favor of supporting Ukraine with money and weapons, how do these wars compare financially in the U.S. budget, and the depletion of U.S. military hardware?
(V) & (Z) answer: It is not easy to put a price tag on a war waged by the U.S., in part because it's hard to separate "what the country would normally spend" from "what money, but for the war, would not have been spent," and in part because wars lead to future obligations (veterans' healthcare, veterans' pensions, interest payments) that can only be estimated. That said, most analysts put the price tag for the 9/11 wars at somewhere between $8 trillion and $10 trillion.
By contrast, the Ukraine's war in Russia is a bargain. So far, the U.S. has sent the Ukrainians $110 billion in money and materiel. And other than interest on any borrowing needed to cover that outlay, there won't be long-term obligations, as the U.S. has no duty to provide healthcare for Ukrainian soldiers 50 years from now.
P.S. in Arlington, TN, asks: Am I missing something with the issues that Republicans have with funding for Ukraine? I'm showing that we've spent around $46.6 billion total on aid for Ukraine. By my math, that's less than a week of Medicare/Social Security spending.
If Ukraine is conquered by Russia, wouldn't we assume that we would have to send tens of thousands of troops to NATO to defend Eastern Europe? Assuming that, how would we protect Taiwan? It would seem that we'd be talking costs in the trillions annually, the potential resumption of the military draft, and the possibility of World War III.
Where am I wrong on these assumptions? It seems to me this is more about Donald Trump's first impeachment than the money.(V) & (Z) answer: Note that the $46.6 billion is direct military aid only. There's been another $65 billion or so in other forms of aid, such as helping Ukraine with domestic expenses like the costs of keeping schools running.
Undoubtedly, much of the resistance to Ukraine aid is because Trump, who basically sets the agenda for the Republican Party, hates Volodymyr Zelenskyy and likes Vladimir Putin. We'll also add two other things. The first is that, under Trump, the Republican Party has trended in the direction of isolationism. This is a common policy position for "[NATION] First" parties who long for a simpler time. Second, voters in general, and Republican voters in particular, are pretty bad at grasping second-order and third-order effects of policy decisions. For example, Republican voters tend to hate additional taxes designed to fund green initiatives. This overlooks the fact that if the planet heats up, the financial costs to everyone will be many more times the cost of the taxes.
K.L. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: If there is one single topic/question that needs to be discussed up front, it's Biden's flip-flop on the border wall. I'm sure I can't be the only one wanting to hear any valid excuses you think he can offer. Regardless, this decision was a doozy—and quite a troubling one.
(V) & (Z) answer: We wrote about this after you sent your question in, so perhaps you have your answer already. However, the most Biden-friendly interpretation is that the President either had to suspend environmental laws in order to be able to spend the money, or he had to engage in impoundment (refusing to spend money allocated by Congress, which was made illegal after Richard Nixon started using the trick), and that he chose the less bad option.
C.C. in Saint Paul, MN, asks: I see many people, yourselves included, seemingly pleased to see Trump might finally face legal consequences for his alleged crimes.
I, on the other hand, mostly feel trepidation. I worry that it plays into his victim narrative and only makes his followers love him more and that any sort of criminal conviction might result in significant violence from his followers.
Don't get me wrong, when someone tries to overturn an election and the prosecution thinks they have the proof, they should absolutely charge him. Ditto for hoarding classified government documents and lying about it. I'm just not excited because I am genuinely afraid of where this all leads.
Do you have this mixed reaction at all? Why or why not?(V) & (Z) answer: In general, we think that the people who do not love Donald Trump spend too much time worrying about the people who do love Trump, and how those people will respond when their Dear Leader suffers political and/or legal setbacks.
We doubt there will be widespread violence if and when Trump is convicted of a crime. His followers are too spread out and, like their hero, tend to talk big without backing it up. But even if they do end up rebelling in some way, then that is the price of protecting the democracy. And worrying about it months or years in advance won't do any good.
O.Z.H. in Dubai, UAE, asks: Further to your assessments that the only attacks that work against Donald Trump are attacks on his person—wouldn't the most effective attack be on his manhood vis-à-vis foreign policy? That is, it's not that he is some sort of peacemaker, its just that he's too much of a pu**y to support our armed forces and stand-up to the aggression of dictators such as Putin? And frankly, this is, in fact, broadly correct. Why aren't Democrats using this angle?
(V) & (Z) answer: Well, the Democrats aren't going to be so earthy, since that particular verbiage is both vulgar and sexist. Also, full-frontal attacks from, say, Joe Biden generally won't play very well. His image is that he's a statesman, not a street brawler. Democratic surrogates—say, Wesley Clark or Jimmy Kimmel—might make this point a few times, however.
Whatever the messaging is going to be, the Democrats are going to keep it under wraps for a while longer. Donald Trump is in full campaign mode already, and doesn't seem to realize that after you say something the hundredth time, it's pretty stale. How much mileage is he getting these days, for example, from repeating the "stolen election" stuff? The people who run the Democratic Party know that it's unwise for them to expend their best ammunition at a time when the election isn't even on most voters' radars.
M.A. in Knoxville, TN, asks: Those of us who read your site are dialed-in to politics and understand just how chaotic and historically dysfunctional the House GOP caucus currently is, but I'm afraid it may be a bit too inside baseball for the average voter. I'm curious what impact, if any, you think the Republican circus in the House will have on regular voters? Is this likely to damage them with actual independents and sane Republicans, or will they pay no price for their dysfunction?
(V) & (Z) answer: The nature of modern politics is that it's necessary to keep things simple. If the process of picking a replacement for Kevin McCarthy turns into a circus, and in particular if that intersects with the budget negotiations, every Democrat in the country is going to spend next year saying: "Are these really the people you want running the country?" Very simple, very clear. We think that will land with some meaningful percentage of voters whose votes are up in the air.
T.G. in San Francisco, CA, asks: I've been wondering if there is a disadvantage for Democrats in calling their party the "Democratic Party," especially given the current political climate. When some folks read that various Republican efforts (such as voter suppression) are "anti-democratic," these folks may interpret "anti-democratic" to mean "anti-Democratic Party." In doing do, they fail to register the real danger anti-democratic efforts pose to our country and instead may just think that the "anti-democratic" issue being described is just a bunch of Democrats whining about lack of support for their party. Do you think this is possibly happening and thus harming the ability of a significant number of people to really see the potential danger to our country's democracy? If so, is there different terminology which could be used instead of "anti-democratic"?
(V) & (Z) answer: We think anyone who cares enough about politics to be following events right now is sensitive to the difference between "anti-democratic" and "anti-Democratic." Next year, Democratic politicians will have to find a way to communicate with folks who might be less sensitive to those distinctions. We think they will find it, since changing the name of the party is not practical. "Undemocratic" strikes us as less likely to be misunderstood. Of course, so does "fascist."
E.L. in Seacaucus, NJ, asks: I know there have been challenges over the past few months with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) being available to vote, but why are the democrats dragging their feet on judicial confirmations. There are 22 pending Senate action and another dozen sitting with the Judiciary Committee. There is virtually nothing the Democrats can get done in the Senate right now except for vote on nominations.
(V) & (Z) answer: Outside of a few dozen people, nobody knows exactly how much Feinstein's incapacity was interfering with the Judiciary Committee's ability to do its job. On top of that, the Senate has been in recess for much of the last couple of months. They're now back until the holidays, however, and will surely take care of business with all due speed once the Committee is back at full strength.
J.G. in Fredonia NY, asks: Cryptocurrency is in the news this week due to Sam Bankman-Fried's FTX criminal fraud trial. The case compellingly makes the argument for more regulation of the industry. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) are supporting regulation via the Agriculture Department's Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and not the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The CFTC is a small operation compared to the SEC. Lummis sees Wyoming as the future center of U.S. cryptocurrency exchange so her support makes some sense. Why is Gillibrand part of the scheme?
(V) & (Z) answer: We can only guess here, but we would guess her interest in cryptocurrency has to do with protecting New York City's turf as the financial capital of the world, while her interest in working though the DoA is because she's on the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry and she's not on the Senate Committee on Finance.
J.E. in San Jose, CA, asks: Do you think Moms for Liberty goes after school boards because they're the easiest to infiltrate, even if what they want is, as you have noted, often outside a school board's purview?
(V) & (Z) answer: That's part of it. The other part of it is that school boards present an opportunity to appeal to voters' emotions. Very few people get fired up by whatever the local public utility commission is doing. On the other hand, "think of the children" is political gold.
J.K. in Boston, MA, asks: I think you've addressed this before, but if Minnesota's Democratic Party is actually the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party, why don't they either have (D-MN) next to their name, since they are the only state Democratic Party affiliation, or (I-MN) next to their name, since they are not precisely Democrats but caucus as such, like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)? We don't use (DS-VT) for him.
There are more pressing questions about the current state of things, but I bet I'm not the only one who's wondering.(V) & (Z) answer: We use DFL-MN because that is their preferred form. We use I-VT because that is Sanders' preferred form. In general, we accede to the preferences of individuals and groups unless we feel that honoring those preferences makes us complicit in propagating spin or other dishonesty.
M.R. in Atlanta, GA, asks: Last week, my husband and I were invited to the home of a local attorney, who has represented Donald Trump in a high-profile case. We are at the other end of the political spectrum than the former president, to say the least. A colleague of mine was shocked that we would accept the invitation. We learned that this lawyer has taken cases of all kinds, many in which they represented issues that we consider progressive. We found the person to be charming and thoughtful—but I wondered if we were being hoodwinked by a smooth talker concerned about their public standing. I know that you are not lawyers, but what are the political considerations in attorneys deciding to take a case? Even terrible people have the right to counsel in these United States, especially if a terrible person is nevertheless being treated unfairly by a particular aspect of the criminal justice system. Do lawyers with integrity take high-profile cases in which the defendant is clearly one of those terrible people? Or are those lawyers considered desperate and/or attention junkies by their peers?
(V) & (Z) answer: There are 1.3 million lawyers in the U.S., so what we say here is going to be generally true, at best, and not universally true. It helps to think of lawyers the way that you think of doctors. Doctors have a duty to treat the unhealthy, and do not discriminate on the basis of political viewpoints. Lawyers have a responsibility as officers of the court, and largely prefer not to discriminate on the basis of political viewpoints, taking the position that everyone is entitled to vigorous representation.
With this said, just as a doctor concerned with women's issues may choose to work at Planned Parenthood, a lawyer might pursue an area of practice that meshes with their personal or political values. (Z) for example, is still in touch with a schoolmate from UCLA who is the children of immigrants and so chose to go into immigration law. On top of that, a lawyer may accept or decline clients on the basis that it's good for business. If Peter Thiel is offering a $10 million retainer, that's hard to turn down. If defending Donald Trump means all your other clients leave, then that's hard to accept.
In short, unless you have additional information, we don't think you can infer much about this lawyer from the fact that he represented Donald Trump. Their politics might align, but it's far from certain.
P.F. in Fairbanks, AK, asks: I don't mean to be that guy, and I certainly wouldn't turn anyone in, but... wouldn't the mug shot of Trump you're now using violate the copyright held by Fulton County?
(V) & (Z) answer: As a practical matter, we are not concerned. Even if we are on the wrong side of the law, Fulton County is unlikely to discover the usage and come after us.
On top of that, however, we do not believe we are on the wrong side of the law. Among other things, we're not using the original work, we're using an adapted version (we cut out the background, which is about 50% of the area). And we are using it to illustrate a legitimate educational point. Oh, and Fulton County has thus far declined to enforce its copyright, which means DA Fani Willis can hardly argue that our masthead has been uniquely responsible for [X] damage to Fulton County. All of these points support an argument of fair use, which would exempt us from copyright law.
M.C. in New Orleans, LA, asks: Donald Trump has said that he will testify in the New York civil trial regarding his businesses. If he lies under oath, as everyone would expect him to do, could he get charged with perjury? And, knowing that he might, wouldn't Letitia James, knowing Trump's proclivity to tell lies, put together questions that he would definitely answer less than truthfully?
(V) & (Z) answer: It doesn't matter what kind of trial it is; if you lie on the stand, that is perjury. And Letitia James certainly would try to catch him in one or more lies. Not so she could add perjury to the rap sheet (that would be a bonus), but because it would serve to undermine his testimony.
S.W. in New York City, NY, asks: I was wondering if: (1) Members of Congress get bonus/extra pay if they are in leadership positions, and (2) Would it be feasible for Donald Trump to move to Bedminster (New Jersey) for legal residency if he wanted to choose a running mate from Florida?
(V) & (Z) answer: The Speaker of the House is paid $223,500 per year. The President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the majority and minority leaders in both chambers, are paid $193,400 per year. Every other member is paid $174,000 per year. We don't know what the Speaker Pro Tempore of the House is being paid right now, but probably it's the same as the Senate Pro Tempore.
You did not ask, but the maximum salary for a congressional staffer is $212,100 per year. So, it's entirely possible a member could be earning less than their chief of staff or their legislative director.
And there is nothing legal stopping Trump from establishing residency in New Jersey. The only obstacle is his ego; we are somewhat skeptical that he would be willing to "move" instead of the VP doing so. The problem is that many of the would-be VPs are elected officials, and cannot plausibly establish residency elsewhere.
A.J. in Baltimore, MD, asks: Why did the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 have a ten-year sunset provision? Was there some parliamentary reason why it couldn't have been permanent? Were there Congresspeople who wouldn't vote for it unless it expired in 10 years?
(V) & (Z) answer: Your latter supposition is the correct one. Dianne Feinstein had to put that in to get the bill over the finish line (and she bitterly complained about it). Her hope was that the members would see the positive benefits and would want to retain them. She did not account for the awesome power of the NRA.
L.B. in Bozeman, MT, asks: I was looking at the most recent official portrait of the Supreme Court, and it made me curious why the four women are positioned on the ends. Do you think there is any symbolism in this placement?
(V) & (Z) answer: The justices are arranged by seniority, although the algorithm is a little odd. If Seat 1 is the first seat in the front row and Seat 9 is the last spot in the back row, then here is the arrangement:
- Seat 1: Third most senior Associate Justice (Sotomayor)
- Seat 2: Most senior Associate Justice (Thomas)
- Seat 3: Chief Justice (Roberts)
- Seat 4: Second most senior Associate Justice (Alito)
- Seat 5: Fourth most senior Associate Justice (Kagan)
- Seat 6: Seventh most senior Associate Justice (Barrett)
- Seat 7: Fifth most senior Associate Justice (Gorsuch)
- Seat 8: Sixth most senior Associate Justice (Kavanaugh)
- Seat 9: Eighth most senior Associate Justice (Jackson)
The way you end up with this arrangement is you put the Chief in the center. Then, to his right is "higher ranking" than to his left, front row is "higher ranking" than back row, and next to him is "higher ranking" than not next to him.
J.N. in Durham, NC, asks: There is a line from "Give it All Away" by World Party that I used to use as my email signature: "Kings and queens and presidents younger than the Stones." It obviously has lost its relevance, but I am 68 and the only president younger than me has been Barack Obama and it's likely that I won't see a president younger than me until at least January 20, 2029. I wonder if we have ever had a string of presidents taking office with such a long stretch of increasing age?
(V) & (Z) answer: From Obama (47) to Donald Trump (70) to Joe Biden (78), it's been a run of 1-2-3 in terms of age-older-older still. The U.S. has had three other runs like that, although the first comes with an obvious asterisk:
- Grover Cleveland (47), Benjamin Harrison (55, 196 days), Cleveland (55, 351 days)
- Theodore Roosevelt (42), William Howard Taft (51), Woodrow Wilson (56)
- Franklin D. Roosevelt (51), Harry S. Truman (60), Dwight D. Eisenhower (62)
There has also been one run of four:
- John F. Kennedy (43), Lyndon B. Johnson (55), Richard Nixon (56), Gerald Ford (61)
The lesson here is that when the U.S. elects a president who is in his forties (or close to it), this particular pattern becomes very possible. That said, as you can see, there's never been a gap as big as the 31 years between Obama's age and Biden's, primarily because there's never been a president as old as Biden.
J.H. in Lodi, NY, asks: Hasn't Millard Fillmore taken enough grief without you piling on? Even though he was a founder of the University at Buffalo and its chancellor, three years ago the institution removed Fillmore's name from its Academic Center, citing "systemic racism" and his support of the Compromise of 1850.
(V) & (Z) answer: We chose him because a survey a few years ago identified him as the most obscure president in U.S. history. Plus, he spent his adult life in Buffalo, which is right next to Canada. We are sure you understand what issues that raises.
M.H. in Ithaca, NY, asks: Paul Krugman opened his most recent essay with "I'm not a historian, but as far as I know, America has never seen anything like the current political craziness." Your thoughts as an actual historian?
(V) & (Z) answer: As they say, history never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme. There are many parallels between the current era and what happened before the Civil War. Just this week, without it even occurring to (Z), the students in his Civil War course observed that the internecine strife in the Democratic Party that eventually led them to field two presidential candidates in the election of 1860 is awfully similar to the internecine strife between the Freedom Caucusers and the rest of the Republican Party.
M.B. in Montreal, QC, Canada, asks: Do you think that the primary system is responsible for the increasing partisanship in American politics? Primaries were originally intended to spread democratic choice into the nominating process. But what they seem to have done is encourage partisanship and extremism. Now a moderate who is interesting in actually, you know, governing, is in serious danger of being primaried.
(V) & (Z) answer: First, as we note in the answer above, there was plenty of partisan rancor in the era before primaries. That's true of the Civil War era, and it's true of the Gilded Age, and it's true of the early 20th century.
Second, the presidential primary system (congressional primaries date back much further) has actually done a pretty good job of putting moderates in the White House. Think Bill Clinton, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Joe Biden, George H.W. Bush, Richard Nixon. Generally, when extremists have snuck through, they have been crushed. Think Barry Goldwater.
The reason the presidential primary system has failed in this regard, in recent years, is that the entire Republican Party has veered sharply to the right. If smoke-filled rooms still existed, the candidates would still be extreme because the people running the party are extreme. All that would change is that an extremist outsider like Donald Trump would have been replaced by an extremist insider like Mike Pence.
R.A. in Chesterfield, MO, asks: I'm addressing this to (Z), as it is his area of expertise. I recently began reading A Disease in the Public Mind by Thomas Fleming. I'm a little over halfway through it, and am growing increasingly uneasy. The subtitle is "A New Understanding of Why We Fought the Civil War," and from the tenor of the book thus far, he is putting most of the blame on the abolitionists, while defending the "slave economy" of the South in much the manner of Gov. Ron DeSantis' (R-FL) "slaves learned useful skills" agenda.
Is (Z) familiar with the author, who is apparently a Revolutionary War historian of some merit? Has he read the book, and if so, what does he think of the book's premise, and am I reading too much into it too soon?(V) & (Z) answer: (Z) is familiar with the author, but has not read the book. Fleming is a fellow, now deceased, who sold a fair number of historical books and novels. That does not necessarily mean he has merit however, and he certainly didn't have advanced training, having ended his education upon completing his B.A.
If "blame the abolitionists" is his argument, it is most certainly not a new understanding of the Civil War. Avery Craven and Frank Lawrence Owlsey were writing that same thing nearly a century ago. And it was, to a greater or lesser extent, the predominant understanding of the cause of the war in the 1950s and 1960s. It is also not an accurate understanding of the Civil War. There is no way a vocal minority (2% of the population, at most) could have persuaded the majority of Northerners to commence and wage a brutal 4-year war if the majority was not motivated by the conviction that something real and important was at stake.
F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: You wrote that there are actually two "Lost Cause" narratives about the Civil War, the well-known "Lost Cause" and what (Z) calls the "White Supremacist Cause." Can you explain the difference? As far as I know, a "Lost Cause" narrative was dominant among historians prior to the Civil Rights era. Is this true? If yes, which of the two "Lost Cause" narratives was the dominant one among historians?
(V) & (Z) answer: The fundamental difference is that the Lost Cause, and the works it inspired (like Gone with the Wind) downplay the racial dimensions of the war. To the extent that race is present at all, it is treated as a secondary issue, and the slave system is portrayed as an essentially beneficent institution that served everyone well.
By contrast, the White Supremacist cause, and the works it inspired (like The Birth of a Nation) propose that enslaved people were little better than animals, and glorify those white people (whether slave overseers, slave owners, or Ku Klux Klansmen) who worked to preserve the "proper order" of things, even if that meant the use of extreme violence.
The milder version was the one predominant before the Civil War, although there were certainly some authors (say, Thomas Dixon or Ulrich B. Phillips) who veered strongly in the White Supremacist Cause direction.
R.M.S. in Stamford, CT, asks: Since both of you have worked in academia, I have a question which might ruffle some feathers. Do you think Jordan Peterson is currently the biggest grifter in academia? Yes, his academic credentials are first-rate, and include teaching experience at Harvard University, the University of Toronto, and having authored or co-authored over 100 academic papers in peer-reviewed journals. He also operated a private clinical psychology practice for many years.
However, I am not talking only about his academic career but his public life as a whole. Since the mid 2010's, he has become a popular commentator on TV, podcasts, and social media. He is also paid to give speeches at various conferences, and has sold millions of self-help books. He is very popular with single white men under age 50, who seem to have developed a personality cult around him.
Some of the things he does are very reminiscent of Donald Trump. He loves to make provocative or argumentative statements and then plays the victim card when people push back against him. One of the things he is most famous for is complaining about being deplatformed on social media for intentionally misgendering trans people or attacking them for having surgery. He knows social media companies are private entities, and users must agree to terms of use when they create accounts. On most social media websites, misgendering or singling out trans people is a no-no, and he is intelligent enough to read the policies and understand them.
So he is intentionally violating their rules, gets attention for it, then claims he is being persecuted online, and it helps him sell more books and speaking opportunities. I think this is a transparent grift and it's sad that so many younger men fall for it.(And I am in his target demographic). Do you think there is anyone else in the academic world who is a bigger grifter today?(V) & (Z) answer: We are not sure how to quantify grift; we don't have a magic mirror to which we can say "Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who is the griftiest one of all?" Nor are we certain how closely connected to the academy one has to be to still be considered "in academia."
What we can tell you, however, is that there are plenty of people who are leveraging their academic credentials in order to line their own pockets. Mehmet Oz, who got much mileage out of his position on the faculty of Columbia's medical school, leaps to mind. So does Ben Carson. Trump lackey John Eastman, who was on the faculty at Chapman University until recently. A sizable number of TV preachers with PhDs from schools of questionable merit. David Duke, who has a "degree" from what is basically a Nazi university in Ukraine (Interregional Academy of Personnel Management, more commonly known as the "University of Hate").
D.K. in Miami, FL, asks: I know you have the Previous Report tab, but do you guys have a search tool? My brother loves the site almost as much as I do, but he doesn't read it daily like me (what a fool!). I would like to show him some of your border wall coverage in terms of how it is mostly inefficient, ineffective, cost prohibitive, along with environmental/geographical/geological/land use/zoning issues.
(V) & (Z) answer: If you scroll down to the very bottom of the page, after all the headlines from previous days, there's a search bar there.
R.L. in Alameda, CA, asks: Since "speaker" is the title enjoyed by the Speaker of the House, why isn't it capitalized like "Senator," "Representative," "Justice", etc.? I've seen you capitalize "Speaker of the House" but in the same sentence refer to Patrick McHenry as "acting speaker." Shouldn't he be "acting Speaker"?
(V) & (Z) answer: As a general rule, office titles are capitalized in three circumstances:
- If we are using the formal name of the office. So, "Speaker of the House" is capitalized but not "speaker." "President of the United States" but not "president." "Secretary of Commerce" but not "commerce secretary."
- If we are using the office name as a title. So, President Biden is running for president again in 2024. Speaker Kevin McCarthy was ousted today and said he will not run for speaker again. Secretary Gina Raimondo was absent from the Cabinet meeting, and so could not consult with the other secretaries.
- If we are using the office name in place of the person's proper name. So, the President said today that he's enjoyed being president. The Speaker said today that he will vacate the speaker's office. The Secretary insisted that her only job, as secretary, is to protect the commercial interests of the United States.
We may err on occasion, since we refer to these various offices a lot. But these are the rules we endeavor to adhere to.
Here is the question we put before readers last week:
L.E. in Putnam County, NY, asks: While "dogcatcher" is generally the proverbial mock example, what is the actual lowest-ranked office on your local ballot?
In my township, it's been Superintendent of Highways since the 1950s. Before we stopped having one-room schoolhouses it was Director of Schools, and before that, until we got a professional police department, it was Constable (there were several). Going back to the 19th century, it was Pathmaster (person who took responsibility for maintaining a few dirt roads; there were many Pathmasters throughout the town).
And here some of the answers we got in response:
T.B. in Leon County, FL: The Leon Soil and Water Conservation District is comprised of five unpaid elected supervisors who work together to promote public health through the protection of natural resources; I get to vote in the race for one of the positions. There are 58 Soil and Water Conservation Districts in Florida. At election time, it is difficult to find any information about the nonpartisan candidates, other than their names ('cause these are on the sample ballot).
R.H. in Santa Ana, CA: Though I now live in Orange County, California, I came here from Kentucky, where each of its 120 counties have an elected position known as County Judge-Executive. Since the City of Louisville merged with Jefferson County, that position in Louisville Metro has no duties, but it cannot be eliminated without amending the Kentucky constitution.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has had only two elected positions in his entire life: U.S. Senator, and Jefferson County Judge-Executive, though Mitch held that office before the merger, so it did have some minor duties at that time.
C.T. in Cape Coral, FL: In its present form, the Governorship of Florida!
J.I. in Regina, SK, Canada: The lowest-ranking official I've ever voted for would be a school board member. That's because Canada never bought into Jacksonian democracy. The only other positions I've voted for are city councillors, mayor, member of the provincial assembly, and member of Parliament. I've never cast a ballot for someone who would likely be premier or prime minister, since I've never lived in a party leader's riding. Nor have I ever voted for a law enforcement officer, or (heaven forbid!) a judge. Those are never elected positions in Canada.
H.F. in Pittsburgh, PA: Prothonotary, a clerk of the court.
D.E. in Ann Arbor, MI: One of the lowliest elective offices here in Washtenaw County was once called the Drain Commissioner, now known as Water Resources Commissioner. In my long-ago youth I seem to remember it was always held by a Republican farmer, who was literally responsible for keeping the drains (artificial and natural farm creeks) up and running.
Decades ago, Democratic environmentalists began running for this office and winning, including the brilliant Tom Blessing, the brilliant Janis Bobrin, and the equally brilliant incumbent, Evan Pratt. They have reinvented the office, taking a broad view of their purview, leading to numerous initiatives like county-run home toxics collections (to keep toxins out of our waterways), promoting and creating rain gardens and other storm water retention infrastructure (including some absolutely humongous projects), to sponsoring and curating a weekly public-radio show focusing on issues of the environment.
Of course, they still protect drains as well.
T.M.M. in Odessa, MO: For the general election ballot, I would have to say the lowest office is County Surveyor. Technically, the office just creates the obligation to accept any survey work in the county (but people can always choose another licensed surveyor) and, if the county needs survey work done, it has to use the County Surveyor. But the office has no salary and no regular duties
C.J. in Lowell, MA: The town in Massachusetts I grew up in elects Selectmen, School Committee, Library Trustees, Moderator, and some members of the local Housing Authority. I once had a task of researching town officials in New Hampshire and some of them elect Cemetery Commissioners, Clerks, Tax Collectors, and Animal Control Officers (so literally dogcatchers).
K.S. in Harrisburg, PA: Each precinct in each township in each county in Pennsylvania has a majority and minority election inspector to work the polls. This supposedly gives each of the (major) parties representation at each polling station. Most of the people working the polls are not elected, but by having the two inspectors, it's assumed that each party nominates one and the one with the most votes is assumed to be of the majority party.
In actuality, though, many of these slots on the ballot are not filled by either party. This means that a single write=in vote from my daughter-in-law was enough to put me over the top (well, after tossing the Mickey Mouse and Ben Dover votes).
It's turned out well, though. Although it means working a 16-hour day twice a year, I have very much enjoyed being involved with democracy at its most basic level and now have the utmost respect for the thousands of election workers who provide this country with fair elections. It's amazing to me though, that with so many different groups threatening to create disturbances at the polls, that either party is allowing any open slots on the ballot.
Be that as it may, I think being able to win an election with one write-in vote makes election inspector the lowest-ranking (but not least important) position on our local ballot.
R.L. in Easton, CT: In my hometown, the least significant elected office is constable. There are seven of them elected every two years—more than any other office. Their job is to serve legal papers and to maintain order at town meetings, which is the legislative body of our town. I've served on our Board of Selectmen for 24 of the past 26 years but have decided not to run again this November—time for a change. In all that time, I am unaware of a constable exercising any of their duties. While we've had some raucus town meetings over the years, no constable ever stepped up!
Runner-up would be the two seats that are up each year for our Library Board of Directors. While that is a valuable body, it really should not be an elected office.
Of course, everyone's favorite local office in my town is the Measurer of Wood. We have two. Alas, this position is appointed by the Board of Selectmen, and so does not meet the criteria of the question of the week. The job is to make sure that if you buy a cord of wood that you actually get a cord of wood. Still, even if it's not elected, how could I not mention it!
D.E. in Lancaster, PA: I think Washington, DC has got Putnam County beat. Your dog catchers and pathfinders, I assume, would be responsible to perform their duties for the whole county, which, according to Wikipedia, is 246 square miles of county with a population of 97,668. I also assume these are/were paid positions. Washington has Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) Commissioners (yes, you read that right), who are voted for by ballot (always the last spot unless there's a ballot initiative). ANC Members serve for two year terms and participate/advise in matters concerning traffic issues, zoning, police protection, economic development, but mainly issues involving liquor licenses (If you were trying to run a bar in DC, the ANC can become your biggest nightmare). Each Commissioner represents about 2,000 people. The position is not a paid one, although they can hire staff to help improve their neighborhood (and, shocker, that can be a subject of grift and corruption). If you're wondering why anyone would run for a position that wasn't paid, the ANC Commissioners are great starting points for getting into District politics and most City Council members got their start representing their neighborhood ANC. I knew one of the ANCs for my neighborhood and if you held a gun to my head, I couldn't even begin to guess at what she did during her 2 years in that position. At least the City Council meetings were televised and were often quite entertaining, and not always in a purely civic way.
I lived in D.C. for 20 some years and I'll be honest, I never really grasped the whole concept of the ANC Commissioners, so if I foul up this explanation, I bow to anyone more knowledgeable. Washington is divided up into eight wards, and each ward has between 4-7 Commission Districts; and each of those districts are then divided into Single Member Districts (SMD), totaling 345 ANC Commissioners! When I lived in D.C., I lived in Ward 1, in Commission District C and SMD 06. To give you an idea of the size of the area these Commissioners represented, I could walk across my Commission District in about 5-10 minutes, depending if I hit the crosswalks right. It has 8 SMDs within its borders. My SMD consists of 4¾ city blocks plus one District Park. Without realizing it, I would walk my dog around its perimeter for every walkie. The apartment building I lived in, which was almost a block big, had about 400 residents, which is a fifth of the number of people represented by the SMD! Again, these elected positions were always on the ballot, although my memory says that they mostly ran unopposed and that there were times when no one would run at all. When there was competition, it was always a case of one apartment building versus another. If someone can name an elected position smaller and even more powerless, I will be shocked!
K.H. in a small town outside Corning, NH: For our town it is currently Town Clerk, though some would argue that she has more influence than the title suggests! Until recently, Town Assessor might have been lowest-ranked, but we converted that to an appointed position. We also elect our Highway Superintendant, but I would not call this low-ranking given the percent of the town budget he spends. We elect a Town Justice who holds court twice a month—so, for hours worked, that may be the lowest-ranking. These official titles somewhat obscure the "ranking" of duties they perform. I do recall that when I was elected as Town Supervisor, my very first "official act" was to replace the leaking toilet in the ladies room. Luckily, I have replaced a few toilets in my time, so when I reported the leak on my first day and the Clerk told me that it was my job, I was able to say, "well, let me get my tools, then." Meanwhile, we appoint our dogcatcher, but you'd be amazed at the controversy that can exist in this act!
Here is the question for next week:
D.D. in Hollywood, FL, asks: Whenever I see an American flag in someone's yard, I can't help but think they must be MAGA Trump supporters. Am I the only one to see what Donald Trump has wrought for our national symbol? Or am I overreacting?
Submit your answers here!