No Labels Has No Platform

It is not a secret that we do not take No Labels seriously as a political movement. First, all of these alleged "third way" organizations conveniently ignore the fact that, at least in the 21st century, voters who are alienated from the political system are scattered across the political spectrum. There isn't some "silent majority" in the middle, just waiting to be plucked. Second, No Labels in particular very much appears to be a de facto Trump 2024 front; its only plausible impact is to steal enough votes that would otherwise go to Joe Biden such that a couple of close states flip to Donald Trump (think Stein 2016 or Nader 2000). Even No Labels' own polling shows this. It may be that some No Labels participants really think they are revolutionizing American politics, but surely that's not what's motivating high-dollar backers like benefactor-of-Clarence-Thomas-billionaire Harlan Crow.

Yesterday, as expected, No Labels unveiled its "platform." When we wrote about the planned platform on Monday, we were skeptical that the document would be meaningful, since it's rather hard to say what your candidate(s) stand(s) for before you have actually, you know, chosen your candidate(s). And indeed, the platform is an exercise in empty verbiage that may sound impressive but that means nothing.

Thanks to the fact that pages 1 and 2 are pictures/chapter headings, the No Labels folks manage to make it all the way to the top of page 3 before making clear that you cannot take them seriously. Here's what the first actual words of the document are:

Most Americans are decent, caring, reasonable, and patriotic people.

But we do not see those traits reflected in our politics today.

Instead, we see our two major political parties dominated by angry and extremist voices driven by ideology and identity politics rather than what's best for our country.

This sort of "both parties are equally guilty" argument is intellectually dishonest to the extreme. There is no question that Trumpublicans are much, much more angry/extremist than any other faction in American politics. There is simply no equivalent to them, either in number or in level of extreme-ness, on the left. Further, even if you believe that someone like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is just as extreme as someone like Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), the progressive wing of the Democrats has a small fraction of the power over the Democrats that the Trumpers have over the Republicans. There is abundant evidence of this, but the quickest statistical indicator is probably this: 1 vs. 15. The former is how many votes it took for Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to be elected speaker in 2021, the latter is how many votes it took for Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) to be elected speaker in 2023. That embarrassing, week-long circus was entirely the work of the Trump-loving Freedom Caucus.

Continuing on page 3, there is an explanation for the name of the No Labels document, which is "Common Sense." Here is that explanation:

This booklet takes its name and inspiration from the original Common Sense pamphlet, published in 1776 by Thomas Paine. Its arguments for America's independence from Great Britain were so clear and inspirational that historians rank Paine as one of the fathers of the American Revolution.

Either someone does not know their history or, more likely, someone thinks that potential readers of this "platform" don't know their history. Paine was a political radical, and a freethinker among freethinkers. When he described his ideas as "common sense," that was aggressive political messaging steeped in irony, not unlike when Adolf Hitler titled his own manifesto as My Struggle. Hitler's book most certainly was not about overcoming oppression, and Paine's treatise, while ultimately very widely read, most certainly was not a rundown of broadly accepted, "common sense" ideas.

Moving along, the "platform" itself has 30 planks, divided into 10 sections. We're going to give you five of them, with our comments, to give you a sense of things:

#2: Our leaders must act now to solve today's economic challenges before they become impossible to solve tomorrow.

Our Response: Hmmmm, perhaps we could outline exactly what "today's economic challenges" are? Followed, maybe, by proposed solutions to those challenges? We are reminded of the episode of Cheers, where associate bartender Woody Boyd runs for city council against empty-suit incumbent Kevin Fogerty. Fogerty is interrogated by barfly (and future spinoff star) Frasier Crane:

Fogerty: Kevin Fogerty, City Council. I hope I have your vote on Election Day.
Crane: And why exactly should I vote for you, Mr. Fogerty?
Fogerty: Well, because I'm a hard worker, and I take a stand.
Crane: On what, exactly?
Fogerty: The issues of the day.
Crane: Which are?
Fogerty: The things that concern you and your family... the most.

No Labels: Taking a stand on the things that concern you and your family... the most.

---

#6: America is a nation of laws, so we must immediately regain control of our borders and stop releasing migrants who enter America illegally into the country.

Our Response: Here we are reminded of a comment by George Washington. When the fellows writing the Constitution were considering writing in a hard limit of 5,000 soldiers for the U.S. Armed Forces, the General reportedly remarked, under his breath, "Then you better tell the enemy not to invade with any more than 3,000 soldiers." If the U.S. is going to "regain control" of the borders, given the resources currently allocated to that task, then someone is going to need to tell the undocumented immigrants that no more than 250,000 of them can come across the border in any given year.

Now, it is true that the border could be made stiffer with vastly more funding. But since the No Labels platform addresses numerous areas where it wants better performance (better schools, better job training for veterans, better investment in healthcare, etc.), it's hard to see where that money is going to come from.

---

#8: Public safety is the highest priority. We need to fix the criminal justice system so career criminals can't keep committing crimes.

Our Response: We will admit that if you stop criminals from committing crimes, you will have solved America's crime problem. Hard to believe nobody has thought of this before.

---

#16: To have cleaner energy, America needs to be able to build clean energy technologies.

Our Response: Again, can't argue with this. Similarly, to have more money, America needs to work on generating wealth. To be more secure, America needs to invest in security. To have better national health, America needs to reduce the number of sick people. It's so simple!

---

#30: Building more homes in America will make housing more affordable for Americans.

Our Response: Hmmmm. Has anyone checked with Paine's contemporary Adam Smith on this? An increase in supply... decreases prices? No Labels needs to cut it out with this kind of economic witchcraft; it's frightening us.

In short, in our view, No Labels has affirmed that it is pretty much all hat and no cattle. Or it will be, once the organization gets a hat. A vote for them is a wasted vote; not only are they not going to win any elections at any level, but their messaging is so meaningless that even a strong showing isn't going to tell the two major parties anything. (Z)

Trump Legal News: Midnight Train to Georgia... Derails

Late Friday, Donald Trump's lawyers filed a petition with the state Supreme Court of Georgia, asking the justices to quash the investigation being conducted by Fulton County DA Fani Willis. You can read the document for yourself at the link, if you wish, but it's basically an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink mishmash of arguments: Willis abused her powers, public statements by members of the grand jury have hopelessly tainted the case, this is a violation of the Constitution, this case is only being brought because Willis is biased against Trump, yada, yada, yada.

It could be a coincidence that the document was posted to the court's website after midnight on Friday (in other words, early Saturday morning), but thanks to Richard Nixon, we are always suspicious of this sort of timing. And it's entirely possible that Trump's attorneys were trying to sneak the document under the radar, so as to minimize the amount of commentary from anyone and everyone who knows anything at all about the law. Because the complaint—if our opinion is not already clear—is dumb. We would think the correct strategy would be to focus on your best angle (or your two best angles), and really hammer that. Because when you toss everything in there, it's the equivalent of saying "OK, we don't really have an argument. We're just grasping at straws."

It would seem the Georgia Supreme Court feels the same way. Certainly, the justices are not buying what Trump is selling (which means that Friday's petition has something in common with Trump Steaks, Trump Vodka, Trump Ice, Trump: The Game, etc.). On Monday afternoon, the nine justices, all but one of them Republican appointees, issued a unanimous order rejecting the petition. That means that, if we consider things in terms of time when the Court was actually open for business, Trump's arguments didn't even stand up for 4 hours.

Needless to say, Trump has made a career of exploring every possible legal avenue, whether the case is civil or criminal. That said, the filing suggests pretty clearly that: (1) He and his team are nervous about a Willis indictment; (2) He and his team suspect that indictment is coming soon, and (3) He does not have much of a defense to the charges that everyone thinks are coming. (Z)

I, The Jury, Part IX: In the Jury Room, Continued

More stories from readers about their experiences once they got into the jury room:

G.A. in Carnation, WA, writes: When I was on a jury, I decided ahead of time to volunteer or lobby to be foreperson if necessary to ensure an efficient deliberation. I have attended many terrible meetings with meandering agendas, tangentially related personal stories, overbearing personalities, unending discussion without conclusions, etc. When we convened in the (Seattle) jury room, there were many smart people with better social and leadership skills than I have, and we elected a good foreperson and were done in 4 hours after a thorough examination and debate of 3 days' worth of evidence.

---

A.U. in Seattle, WA, writes: I was on a jury in a criminal case when I was in my twenties (a loooong time ago). The perp climbed up to the roof of a bar, opened a vent, dropped down, rifled a cash register, stacked tables and chairs to reach the ceiling and climbed out. Police on patrol happened to look in a window and see what was going on, waited 'til the perp climbed off the roof and arrested him. He was charged with burglary and I was on the jury for his trial. With burglary, you have to prove intent (he did all this with the intent to steal), not just the fact that money or goods were taken. The perp, it turns out, when rifling the cash register, took some souvenir foreign currency in addition to "real" money and this was sufficient to prove he didn't just happen to have cash on him anyway.

I was the youngest person on the jury and for some reason the rest of them decided I should be the foreperson—lucky me. Talk about herding cats! There were a couple of folks on the jury that seemed convinced "reasonable doubt" meant the cops could have planned a fraud on this person, staged the robbery, planted the foreign currency, etc. It took a surprising amount of discussion to deem this not reasonable. And—I am forever grateful I watch TV—I knew that we might be polled back in the courtroom, so we practiced this (and we were indeed polled).

Sorry for the long story... Why did the defense even go to trial? It seemed like such an open and shut case! The only conclusion I can come to is that the two folks might have convinced the rest of us or hung the jury. Maybe this happens enough to be worth rolling the dice? Could something like this happen with Donald Trump? Not jurors who are in the bag for him, but jurors who are basically idiots gumming up the works?

---

D.S. in Chicago, IL, writes: I did serve on a jury, for a trial for an accusation of intent to commit larceny. A Black teenager, who had been upset when he was required to stow his backpack when entering the store when white teenagers were not, made some comments to the cashier that were interpreted as a threat. I did not feel there was sufficient evidence and was the only one of 8 jurors who was voting not guilty. But after two days of holding out, I gave in and voted guilty. I'm not proud of it, but I did. I share this because I think that even if there is one Trump supporter on the jury, it takes a very strong-willed and strong-minded individual to hold out for very long against the peer pressure of the group. Indeed, in my opinion, the majority of Trump supporters are such because they have gone along with their peers.

---

E.C-R. in Helsinki, Finland, writes: Many years (and moons) ago I served on two civil-case juries, one in California and one in Oregon. The first was a workplace injury fraud case with the insurance company as defendant and the plaintiff having allegedly hurt his back on the job. One of the witnesses called by the plaintiff was a neurosurgeon who had done a non-surgical consultation about me when I was a teenager. During voir dire I disclosed that I had been treated by said doctor and one lawyer asked if he had done surgery on me. When I said "no," they moved on to the next potential juror without asking my opinion of the doctor. As it happened, in my 20s I had found out from competent doctors, plus a medical textbook, that the drug he recommended to my regular doctor had not been the preferred treatment for several decades, and so I took his testimony with a cup full of salt. So much for voir dire. Despite this, I worked hard to treat the plaintiff's claims objectively and to treat him fairly. In the end we awarded a small amount to the plaintiff because we lacked proof of fraud. I objected to the low award and I also felt that the plaintiff was being milked by his counsel and the doctor who was way outside his area of expertise. C'est la vie.

The second case was more fun for me since I work in (V)'s field. A car purchaser was suing the dealer, claiming his car had an undisclosed cosmetic repair involving "bondo" (whatever that is). The plaintiff had worked on the flight deck in the navy and apparently planes get scraped a lot and touched up with this substance. For more complexity, although the car had been in an accident on the way to the dealership to return it, the defense never challenged the fact of the damage, only claiming that they didn't do it. We heard all sorts of unusable evidence about damage that can occur while shipping cars on trains and trucks. I let the jury deliberate for a couple of hours until it was clear nobody had any idea what to do, and everyone just wanted to go home to dinner. I then offered that I had a 5-minute solution and everyone looked to me as a potential savior. I pointed out that the defense had never contested the plaintiff's claim that the damage had actually occurred before the accident. I then asserted that we hadn't heard any evidence about when, where or how the damage actually occurred. I then stated that therefore the damage was equally likely to have occurred on any of the 90-odd days from the day the car left the factory to the day of the "separate" accident and that whoever had possession for the largest number of days was most likely at fault. We immediately and unanimously awarded for the plaintiff and against the dealership and went home to dinner. Whether justice was served is another question entirely.

My moral is that seemingly innocuous oversights during voir dire could well matter even in a closely watched case like Trump's. Also, never underestimate the desire of a jury to find a superficially logical reason to decide a case and go home. Lastly, always remember that logic can be a frightening tool in the hands of both juries and children. Possibly students too, but I'll leave that to (Z).

---

G.D. in Round Lake, IL, writes: I served on a federal jury a little over a decade ago in Chicago. The trial was of a former Chicago police lieutenant who was being charged with torturing people under arrest to obtain confessions. The trial lasted about a month and was one of the most interesting events I've ever been involved in. They take everything very seriously and make sure we are fair. One day I accidentally saw a news story on the case and self-reported to the judge. After a 30-minute interview, the judge and both sides' counsels decided I was still unbiased. When it came to deliberations, I was fairly confident the defendant was guilty but must admit I had to think it over a lot to make sure I was 100% certain. I always thought when watching the news how obvious people's guilt is, but it's another feeling when you have to make the final decision.

Now for the fun part. Our trial was at the same time as the corruption trial of former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich. When we would have our lunch breaks, we would see him in the cafeteria. Even though he was facing more than a decade in prison he was still shaking hands and pushing himself for future reelection. At one point, a court officer had to warn him to leave the various juries alone. I can see TFG doing just the same during the trial, trying to make friends with the jurors he thinks will support him. I hope they really sequester this jury to keep them safe and away from him and his minions!

We'll have another installment on Friday. Tomorrow, it will be the reports on the upcoming elections in the U.K. (Z)

"Highlights" of Turning Point Straw Poll

Turning Point USA (TPUSA) is one of the many, many right-wing organizations, and it stages one of the many, many right-wing conferences that take place each year. It's among the more prominent ones, however, and a somewhat useful barometer of what the activist class is thinking. Yesterday, the TPUSA straw poll results were released. Here are the big takeaways:

• Onward, Donald!: The members of TPUSA, being of the far-right-activist stripe, love, love, love themselves some Trump. Of those who cast ballots (straws?), 85.7% want the former president to be the Republican standard-bearer for 2024. By contrast, just 4.3% want Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL). It is true that these are Trump's people, and it is also true that Trump actively courted TPUSA support while DeSantis did not. Still, losing 20-to-1 among the people who are most likely to donate money and to knock on doors is not an auspicious sign for the Governor's presidential hopes.
  
  
• Ron Who?: The TPUSA attendees were also asked to imagine a world where Trump is not a presidential candidate. Should such a terrible, awful thing come to pass, the TPUSA folks decided their next favorite option is... Vivek Ramaswamy, who was chosen by 51.2% of respondents. In second place was... Donald Trump, with 21.4%. It is not clear if respondents cannot read directions, or if they cannot read at all, or if they would prefer a dead/imprisoned/withdrawn-from-the-race Trump over a real, live candidate. DeSantis did finish third here, but with just 13.5% support. The hearts of the die-hard Trumpers are clearly lost to the Governor, and without them, how can he possibly win the nomination? Much less the White House?
  
  
• Debatable: Trump cares most about his own opinion. In second place is the collective opinion of his adoring supporters. And 59.4% of them are looking forward to the presidential candidates' debates. If there is any one piece of information that persuades Trump to show up, that piece of information is it. That said, the TPUSA attendees don't much care for the RNC, with 77.3% saying they would never donate money to the Party's central committee. So, if the former president decides to skip the debates, he can blame the RNC and the cultists will largely accept that.
  
  
• What Better for a Sinking Ship than a Lake?: The running mate that the TPUSA folks like the best is "Governor" Kari Lake (R), who was supported by 30.8% of respondents. Next up was Rep. Byron Donalds (R-FL), with 24%, which makes sense since the gathering was held in Florida, and since many Republicans think that if they just choose a brown VP candidate, they'll get a lot of minority votes. In third was Ramaswamy, who is also brown, with 6.9%, followed by DeSantis at 5.2%.
  
  There is one problem with choosing Lake. If Trump has any interest whatsoever in countering the narrative that he's the looney tunes candidate who answers to the looney tunes wing of the GOP, she is... let's just say the wrong choice. Think John McCain and Sarah Palin, except worse. That said, Trump might not care, since he's always been about getting the base to the polls, and not about winning over undecided voters.
  
  
• Rain on Ukraine: The question that generated the most lopsided response, of all those asked by TPUSA, was this one: "Do you support US involvement in the war in Ukraine?" A staggering 95.8% said "no." It's no secret that Trump loves Vladmir Putin and hates Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The base is right there with the former president. So, if he wins in 2024, the U.S. will surely pull its support for Ukraine, Ukraine's war effort will probably collapse, Zelenskyy will probably be executed (or will "jump" out of a window), and Ukraine will become a state (or a client state) of Russia.

And that is the latest news out of TrumpWorld. (Z)

Two More Senate Races Just Got Messier

During the 2022 cycle, there was surely no U.S. Senate primary uglier than the one the Republicans held in Ohio. For something close to 2 years, a gaggle of wannabe GOP senators did everything they could to prove to the mirror, mirror on the wall (and anyone else paying attention) that they were the Trumpiest one of all. Obviously, it ultimately worked out for them, as Sen. J.D. Vance (R) eventually won the primary and then the general.

In 2024, it would seem that the GOP is going for a repeat. State Sen. Matt Dolan (R) jumped in first; he's plenty Trumpy and is backed by his family's massive fortune (they own the Cleveland Guardians, among other things). He was followed by Bernie Moreno, who is also plenty Trumpy, and who is also well-heeled thanks to his past ownership of a used-car-dealership empire. Moreno is also well-connected in Republican circles, as he is father-in-law to Rep. Max Miller (R-OH), a onetime Trump aide.

Although Dolan and Moreno have their advantages, at least from a GOP primary perspective, the former only managed a third-place finish in 2022 while the latter didn't even get that far, dropping out before the primary, but well after the writing was on the wall. In other words, neither is a "sure thing," or anything close to it, which means there is still a lane for one or more aspiring U.S. Senators. And yesterday, the race became a three-way affair, as Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose (R) jumped in.

We certainly do not have our finger on the pulse of Ohio politics, and are happy to hear from readers who are better-informed than we are. That said, we can certainly offer a few observations. First, LaRose doesn't have the bank account that Dolan and Moreno do, but he is certainly Trumpy, and he is the only declared candidate to have won statewide in Ohio. He's also the only candidate of the three to be a veteran, which seems to matter to Ohio voters. On the other hand, he's closely linked to Issue 1, and we're not sure there's a positive outcome there for him. If Issue 1 passes, he will be perceived by centrist voters as anti-democracy. If Issue 1 fails, he will be perceived by right-wing voters as the guy who failed to keep abortion illegal. In any event, it looks like it will be another knock-down, drag-out fight for the Republican nomination. And this time, whoever prevails is going to have to face an incumbent, namely Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH).

Moving on to a state roughly 800 miles to the South, we have a race that just got interesting in a somewhat different way. Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) has won three statewide elections, for senator (once) and for governor (twice), though he always wins by the skin of his teeth (in those three elections, his largest margin of victory was 1.15%). Since the last time he ran for office, he's been branded as the candidate who would consider getting rid of Medicare and Social Security. That may have something to do with the platform he issued in which he implied he would consider getting rid of Medicare and Social Security. Needless to say, this is not the most salable political position in a state where 21.6% of residents are 65 or older.

In short, Scott would seem ripe for a serious challenger. And, as of yesterday, he may have one, in the person of Phil Ehr (D). Here is Ehr's announcement:

If you watch it, you will see that Ehr plays up his military background (26 years in the U.S. Navy), while also hitting Scott over the head for Medicare/Social Security and for being a profiteer back when he was in the hospital ownership business.

Ehr has twice run for office before, once in the 2018 Democratic U.S. Senate primary (he lost to then-incumbent Bill Nelson) and then as the Democratic opponent to Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) in 2022. Normally, a "perennial candidate" who has lost twice is considered to be damaged goods. However, neither of those races were actually winnable, since incumbents are rarely knocked off in primaries (2018) and Gaetz' district is deep red (2022). So, it could be argued that those races were not really referenda on Ehr as a candidate, and instead were practice for a real run. Ehr did show a fair bit of fundraising ability, collecting more than $2 million last year.

It should be noted that the Florida Democratic primary is already crowded, albeit mostly with unknowns, and that the DSCC is still trying to recruit a "name" candidate, like Reps. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick or Debbie Wasserman Schultz, or maybe former basketball player Grant Hill. Still, of the candidates already in, Ehr seems to have the most potential. And regardless of who wins, there is an utterly unpredictable dynamic that will be at play, as either Ron DeSantis or Donald Trump will be a loser when it comes to the Republican presidential nomination. Will that defeat cause fans of one man, or the other, to sit this one out? It wouldn't take very many take-my-ball-and-go-home Republicans to endanger a senator, in Scott, who consistently puts up tiny margins of victory. (Z)

Southern Man, Better Keep Your Head, Don't Forget What SCOTUS Said

As we noted a little over a month ago, the Supreme Court is not happy with Alabama's congressional district map. The state is one-third Black, and yet only one of its seven districts is majority-black, despite the fact that the Black population is largely compressed into the areas in and around Birmingham and Montgomery. Chief Justice John Roberts, and several of his conservative colleagues, are willing to look the other way when the racial gerrymandering is only semi-egregious. But this was too much even for Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh to swallow, and so SCOTUS ordered a more representative map.

The state legislature of Alabama has already returned to the drawing board, and has decided that when the Supreme Court said "we want two majority-Black districts," what it really meant was "if you want to stick with one majority-Black district, that's OK." An Alabama state House committee just approved the new map, which changes AL-02 from roughly 30% Black to roughly 40% Black. It is expected the map will be approved by both chambers of the Alabama legislature this week, since Friday is the deadline to comply with the Supreme Court's order.

What is the thinking of Alabama legislators here? Other than "white power," that is? They could think that "close enough" will be enough to get them off the hook. Or, they could think that when the Supremes get this again, their commitment to pushing back against racial gerrymanders will have waned. Numerous other Southern states have pending cases over this basic issue, and by fall or winter of this year, Roberts and/or Kavanaugh might decide that this issue isn't worth getting involved with anymore. It is also possible that the Alabamians are just trying to waste time, and get close enough to 2024 that they can at least use illegal maps for one more cycle.

We will not pretend to know what is going to happen once all is said and done. We can, however, say that a story like this certainly helps us to understand why Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) is so very interested in playing nice with white supremacists. (Z)

Scavenger Hunt, Part V: John Roberts T-Shirts

Another group of Fourth of July scavenger hunt submissions. Here's the list of questions

1. The single photograph or image that best encapsulates the Trump presidency. (click here and here)
2. Something that would make a terrible Christmas gift for Joe Biden. (click here).
3. A book that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell would never, ever read. (click here).
4. A t-shirt that would be very apropos for Chief Justice John Roberts to wear.
5. The wisest, most insightful, or most pithy quote ever to be uttered by a politician or political figure (need not be limited to Americans). (Submit here)
6. The worst bumper sticker, button, yard sign or other campaign-related ephemera in U.S. history. (Submit here)
7. A portrayal of a key figure in U.S. history—image, song, verse, book, etc.—that is even more ridiculous than Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. (Submit here)
8. This isn't exactly a scavenger hunt type question, but we're going with it anyhow. Finish this joke: "Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis and Hillary Clinton walk into a bar..." (Submit here)

We got quite a few good suggestions for this one, so you're going to get two days' worth. Here's the first set:

J.G. in Fredonia, NY, writes:

Wink, wink to the Federalist Society.

---

J.W. in Kansas City, MO, writes:

Saul Goodman. Need I say more?

---

J.K. in Silverdale, WA, writes:

Well, given recent reporting by Pro Publica, this one works.

---

W.R. in Tyson's Corner, VA, writes:

Also submitted by: D.S.A. in Parish, NY

---

S.W. in Harrisburg, PA, writes:

The Supreme Court's seating chart means that Clarence Thomas sits to Roberts' immediate right.

Also submitted by: G.R. in Clive, IA; J.A.C. in Northbrook, IL; S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA; S.N. in Pittsburgh, PA; J.S. in Sylmar, CA; D.R. in Tetovo, North Macedonia; S.M. in Morganton, GA

---

S.S. in West Hollywood, CA, writes:

---

J.G.P. in Glendale, AZ, writes:

Also submitted by: R.B. in Miami, FL

---

B.B. in Fort Collins, CO, writes:

---

K.H. in Lakewood, CO, writes:

---

M.S. in Brooklyn, NY, writes:

My own design.

---

M.W. in Frederick, MD, writes:

He and the other conservative justices like to think of themselves as umpires that call balls and strikes according to the Constitution. Even if they lived up to that description (spoiler alert: they don't), they are doing a bad job of it.

---

C.M. in Bridgewater, NJ, writes:

Just get everyone who has paid him off to put their logo on his clothes so we know who owns him.

---

J.F. in Fort Worth, TX, writes:

---

A.J. in Mountain View, CA, writes:

I got this for my daughter who will be attending law school in the fall, but maybe it works here also.

---

E.C.-F. in Somerville, MA, writes:

More tomorrow! (Z)

---

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 or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger