Harris Stayed Home Yesterday

Normally, we don't run items that add nothing to what everyone has known for weeks, but when it involves what will certainly be the biggest news story of the coming week, well, you gotta do what you gotta do.

Here's the non-news story. Yesterday, Kamala Harris spent a pleasant Sunday afternoon at her current home at Number One Observatory Circle chatting with a few of her new best friends, Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Govs. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) and Tim Walz (DFL-MN). All of them claim to love their current jobs but, with a bit of effort, she could twist their arms into trying out for a job that pays $284,600 per year and requires no work other than calling the White House at 8 a.m. to see if the president is still alive. If she is, they can take the rest of the day off. Sounds like good work to us if you can get it. Of course, if the Senate is tied at 50-50, which it might well be, then the job also requires the candidate to hang around the Senate and vote once in a while to break ties. Even with that, it is an easy way to earn over $23,000/month in your spare time.

Meanwhile, Democrats, Republicans and pundits of all stripes were speculating throughout the weekend as to which one it would be. Almost no one expects her pick to come out of left field. Harris needs to demonstrate that she is serious and methodical. Weird is already spoken for. Besides, she needs a bland moderate white man who is either a senator or a governor to balance the ticket. Being from a swing state is a plus. So is being very famous. Extra points for being a combat veteran or being an excellent public speaker.

Each of the candidates has pluses and minuses. We've gone over them many times already. It is time for Harris to make a decision. She needs to do this before tomorrow, when she will begin her rapid-fire tour of seven swing states. The call might well come today. Meanwhile, the rumor mill is running full blast, but the people who know aren't talking and the people who are talking don't know.

We don't know any more than anyone else, but we don't see how much Walz brings to the ticket, and he is the most progressive (i.e., the least moderate) of the three, which is a negative for Harris. Shapiro and Kelly each could help pick up a point or two in critical swing states. Kelly is a genuine hero as a former astronaut and veteran, which could help a bit in all states, but he is not a great speaker. His wife, Gabby Giffords, barely survived an assassination attempt, and he could use that to talk about the need for gun control from a personal standpoint. Having Giffords try to campaign as best she could might generate a sympathy vote from people on the fence about gun control. Shapiro has actually run something (the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania), is a gifted orator, and his state has more EVs than Arizona and Nevada combined. Both of them would be a lot better than Sen. Weir. D. Vance (R-OH). (V)

Harris Is Now Officially the Democratic Nominee for President

To avoid being kept off the ballot in Ohio, the Democratic Party held a virtual roll call of the delegates to the Democratic National Convention starting Thursday at 9 a.m. EDT. By Friday, Kamala Harris had the needed 2,350 votes and is now the official Democratic Party nominee for president. Voting will end at 6.p.m. EDT today. All second-guessing should now officially stop. It's over. It's her. Harris said thank you, but her real acceptance speech will be at the convention, which starts Aug. 19 in Chicago.

Harris is doing more than having pleasant chats with guys looking for a better-paid job requiring no heavy lifting. She is also busy hiring folks who will have an extremely strenuous job for the next 3 months. In the past 3 days, she hired David Plouffe, who ran Barack Obama's presidential campaign in 2008; Stephanie Cutter, who was Obama's communications director (and who is also running the Democratic National Convention); David Binder, who ran Obama's polling operation; and Mitch Stewart, who held high positions in both of Obama's campaigns. All the new hires will report to campaign manager Jen O'Malley Dillon, who also held high positions in both of Obama's campaigns. The alert reader may detect a pattern here. Harris is moving at breakneck speed. She has to. She needs to compress 2 years of campaigning into 100 days. (V)

Trump Picks a Fight with Brian Kemp--Again

Some people think Donald Trump plays 3-D chess, and hailed his performance at the NABJ Conference as nailing down his base. We don't think he plays 2-D chess or 1-D chess or even 0-D chess (all the pieces on the same square?). He just goes with his gut.

Evidence? Happy to provide it. On Saturday, Trump reopened an old feud with Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA). On his boutique social media site, which closed Friday at $29.21, one of the lowest points since February, Trump accused the governor of fighting unity and fighting the Republican Party. At a rally, he went further and said of Kemp: "He's a bad guy, he's a disloyal guy and he's a very average governor."

Mind you, Georgia is a swing state that Joe Biden won last time and Kamala Harris is going to fight for tooth and nail. Kemp runs a great GOTV operation. Will he deploy it to help Trump? Does he even want Trump to be president and to diss him from the bully pulpit? Maybe not. In any event, there is no upside in terms of the campaign for Trump to anger Kemp and plenty of downside.

Kemp's former campaign manager, Bobby Saparow, said: "Attacking the popular governor of a pivotal swing state makes zero sense. If we want to actually unite, ask for the support of the guy who beat your endorsed primary opponent by 52 points and handily defeated Stacey Abrams." Conservative radio host Erick Erickson said: "Over 30,000 people refused to vote for [Trump] in Georgia in 2020 and he lost by about 12,000 votes. All he's doing is reminding everyone why they don't like him. And he has no Georgia ground game and will have to rely on Kemp. It's going to hurt him." A Republican operative, who prefers to remain anonymous, told Politico: "I think the more important point is that you're trying to unify your party and you personally attack the most popular politician in the state who has said he's supporting you. It's batsh** crazy." And these are Georgia Republicans. If they don't think Trump is playing 3-D chess, we certainly don't. (V)

Only Half of Trump's Cabinet Supports Him

Normally, the cabinet personally appointed by a president supports the president when he is running for reelection. But Donald Trump is unusual in so many ways. One of them is that of the 42 cabinet and quasi-cabinet and other top-level officials he appointed, only 24 support his White House bid, three actively oppose it, and 15 are keeping their mouths shut. They are no doubt quiet now out of fear for what he would do to them if he is reelected. Richard Nixon merely had the IRS go after his enemies. Trump would probably ask his buddy Vladimir Putin for his favorite recipe for polonium tea. After all, it's apparently not illegal if the president does it.

Here are the supporters and others:

In many cases, the supporters are some combination of hypocrite and coward, although the mix differs from person to person. William Barr said in July 2023, "I have made clear that I strongly oppose Trump for the nomination and will not endorse Trump." Then he endorsed him this year. In February, Nikki Haley said: "Donald Trump can't win a general election." Then she endorsed him in July. Even people who left the Trump administration on bad terms, like former AG Jeff Sessions, have come back with their tails between their legs and endorsed Trump. There aren't a lot of profiles in courage here, except for John Bolton, Mike Esper, and Mike Pence.

But even among the people who are silent, we have a pretty good idea how they feel. For example, former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson once said: "He's a fu**ing moron." Former DNI Dan Coats once said: "He doesn't know the difference between the truth and a lie." Former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly said: "The depths of his dishonesty is just astounding to me... He is the most flawed person I have ever met in my life." Former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis said: "Today's violent assault on our Capitol, an effort to subjugate American democracy by mob rule, was fomented by Mr. Trump." Former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos resigned in protest after the coup attempt and blamed it on Trump. Elaine Chao (a.k.a. Mrs. Mitch McConnell) e-mailed her staff that she was deeply troubled by the coup attempt. It is a fair bet that some of the others are not exactly neutral but are keeping quiet simply to avoid Trump's famous retribution. (V)

Jan. 6 Case against Trump Could Restart Now

When the Supreme Court ruled that presidents are sort of like kings when they are acting in their official capacity, that put the court case in which Donald Trump is charged with trying to overthrow the 2020 elections on hold. The Court also froze everything for a month to allow each side to reconsider its position. In particular, the prosecutors were expected to drop charges for presidential actions that were clearly sanctioned by the Constitution. The one-month window closed on Friday. That sent the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which sent it back to the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, within minutes. Now the ball is in Chutkan's court (no pun intended, well maybe a little bit).

Chutkan's task now is to determine if inciting a mob to attack the Capitol is part of the job description of being president. On Saturday, Chutkan asked both sides for proposals to set a schedule for hearings. She wants the proposals by Aug. 9, and has set Aug. 16 to discuss them. She also said that she will not require Trump to be in the courtroom if he doesn't want to be there. This eliminates the possibility of his lawyers appealing that the case has to be put in the freezer until after the election because Trump has a constitutional right to run for president.

Chutkan is a no-nonsense judge who doesn't like delaying tactics. She could easily schedule hearings for September (without Trump present unless he wants to be). At those hearings, both sides would present evidence about why Trump's actions on Jan. 6 were/were not presidential (in a literal sense). That would allow Special Counsel Jack Smith to show videos and call witnesses to show how riling up a crowd to attack the Capitol was being done by Trump the candidate, not Trump the president. If she ruled that the speech was in Trump's capacity as a candidate, there could be a trial, although Trump could appeal the ruling. There is zero chance of a full trial before the election but a substantial chance of hearings at which Smith could bring up any evidence he wanted. That hearing would suck up almost all the oxygen in the air and remind everyone of the events of that day. It could be devastating, especially to voters who might have been 15 or 16 then and not paying much attention.

No doubt Trump's attorneys will ask for the hearings to begin sometime in 2026 so they can prepare properly. Smith will probably suggest Sept. 2024. It is the judge's call. Team Trump might try for an appeal, but that's not likely to fly, because not every decision in every case can be appealed. Otherwise people with enough money to pay their lawyers indefinitely would never go on trial.

Chutkan has handled a number of Jan. 6 cases already and has established a reputation for handing out tough (but legal) sentences. She clearly regards the coup attempt as a very serious matter. We suspect her ruling will be much closer to what Smith wants than what Trump's lawyers want.

In other legal news, Trump's lawyers in the hush money case in which he was convicted of 34 felonies are arguing that paying off porn stars and then cooking the books in violation of New York State commercial law is part of what presidents do. They want the verdicts thrown out. Among other things, they are arguing that using White House staff, like Hope Hicks, as witnesses, make the case about presidential duties. Judge Juan Merchan has scheduled sentencing in the case for Sept. 18. Now he has to decide what to do next. (V)

There Are Important Primaries Tomorrow

Four states are holding primary elections tomorrow: Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, and Washington. Some of them are highly contested or otherwise important. Here is a brief rundown:

• Kansas: The biggest fight here is in KS-02, which is R+11, a hugely gerrymandered district in the eastern part of the state that runs from the Nebraska border to the Oklahoma border with large chunks missing. It also includes part of the Kansas City suburbs (most of Kansas City is not in Kansas, however; it is in Missouri). After Rep. Jake LaTurner (R-KS) announced his retirement, five Republicans jumped in, so it has been a real mudfight. Donald Trump is backing former Kansas AG Derek Schmidt, so he is probably the favorite. The Democratic primary pits Nancy Boyda, who held the seat from 2007 to 2009, against former University of Kansas basketball player Matt Kleinmann.
  
  In KS-03, three Republicans are gunning for Rep. Sharice Davids (D-KS), who will be defending an R+1 district that is not gerrymandered (much) and consists of four entire counties in the eastern part of the state and the southern half of another county. The NRCC is backing physician Prasanth Reddy against small business owner Karen Crnkovich. If the battle is who has the easiest-to-remember first name, she wins, but if it's the last name that matters, he wins.
  
  
• Michigan: Here the biggest prize is the open Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI). There are primaries on both sides. The Democratic establishment is lined up behind Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI). She faces left-wing actor Hill Harper. Slotkin had $8.7 million in her campaign account on July 17, and is expected to crush Harper like a bug. On the Republican side, the GOP establishment is pushing for former representative Mike Rogers. He had $2.5 million in July. He faces former representative Justin Amash and physician Sherry O'Donnell, and is considered the favorite. The general election will be a real barnburner, with money pouring into Michigan from the entire country. The combination of being a swing state in the presidential election and this Senate race is going to make Michigan the center of the political universe for the next three months.
  
  Since Slotkin is running for the Senate, her House seat in MI-07 is vacant. The Lansing-based district is R+2. However, there is no drama in the primary, as both parties have a candidate who is unopposed. The Democrat is Curtis Hertel, a former state senator, and the Republican is Tom Barrett. Barrett, also a former state senator, ran against Slotkin in 2022 and lost by 5 points. Hertel will have to fight hard to hang onto this Republican-leaning swing district.
  
  There is a key House race in Michigan that is up for grabs: MI-08, because Rep. Dan Kildee (D-MI) is retiring. The PVI is D+1, so it is an open swing seat in a swing state. There will be much swinging here. The district runs from north of Midland, through Saginaw, down to south of Flint and borders Lake Huron. Three notable Democrats are in the race to succeed Kildee. They are state Sen. Kristen McDonald Rivet, former Flint mayor Matt Collier, and President of the Michigan Board of Education Pamela Pugh. Rivet and Collier are white; Pugh is Black. Kildee is backing Rivet and she has outraised the others. On the Republican side, Paul Junge, a former deputy D.A., ran against Kildee in 2022 and lost by 10 points. He is running again, against Mary Draves, a former executive at Dow Chemical, and small business owner Anthony Hudson. With so many unknowns, there is a real possibility of the seat turning red in November.
  
  MI-03 is another swing district but it has an incumbent. It covers Grand Rapids and west to Lake Michigan. It is D+1 and two Republicans are fighting to challenge Rep. Hillary Scholten (D-MI). One is attorney Paul Hudson and the other is businessman Michael Markey. Both are self-funding.
  
  MI-10 is a slightly Republican (R+3) district north of Detroit. Rep. John James (R-MI) is unopposed. Four Democrats are running for the nomination, but James is strongly favored.
  
  
• Missouri: Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO), who represents St. Louis in a D+27 district, is fighting for her political life. It's not that she can't win the general election, it's that she might not make it that far. She is a pro-Palestinian progressive firebrand and member of The Squad who has drawn a lot of criticism, a serious primary challenger, and a lot of outside money aimed at defeating her. The challenger is Wesley Bell, the St. Louis County D.A. Both Bush and Bell are Black, so that factor cancels out. Bell is much more moderate than Bush and has campaigned on his record of putting criminals in prison, but Gaza is also an issue in the race. Pro-Israel groups have spent $9 million targeting Bush on Israel. The total amount of outside money in the race is $15 million, which is enormous for a House primary. Bell has outspent Bush five to one in the last few weeks. The largest newspaper in the district, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, has endorsed Bell. Much of the Democratic establishment has rallied around Bush. This could be a test of how potent Gaza is as an issue. If Bell wins, especially if he wins big, it will show that being pro-Palestinian might get you an invitation to speak at Columbia University, but it won't get you a seat in Congress. Since the district is D+27, the general election is just a formality and it doesn't matter who the Republicans nominate.
  
  There is a competitive primary in MO-03, another massively gerrymandered district, at R+16. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) is hanging up his hat and seven Republicans want a shot at this sure-fire red district. Bob Onder, who founded Missouri's answer to the House Freedom Caucus, has Donald Trump's endorsement, and that might well be enough in a badly fractured field. Or maybe not; Luetkemeyer has endorsed attorney Kurt Schaefer, who has pulled in $7 million in funding from outside the state.
  
  There is also a Senate race in Missouri, as Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) is running for reelection. He is unopposed and had $5.7 million in the bank on July 17. There is a primary on the Democratic side. Lucas Kunce, who had $4.2 million on July 17, is the best known candidate and expected to win the primary and then lose the general election.
  
  
• Washington: The biggest fight here is going to be in WA-03, currently represented by Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (D-WA). The district, which is R+5, is in the southwestern corner of the state, with the Columbia River being its southern boundary. Perez is one of only five Democrats who represent a district Donald Trump won in 2020. Washington has jungle primaries, like California, with a runoff between the top two candidates in November. She is likely to face Joe Kent (R) again, as she did in 2022. Perez has more money than Kent, $3.8 million to $585,000, but Kent can count on Donald Trump showing up to help since Kent is exceedingly Trumpish. Perez understands this; she used to be somewhere between "center-left" and "progressive," but since she set her sights on this seat a couple of years ago, she became the ultimate blue dog.
  
  Three other districts are also getting a lot of attention. WA-04 is interesting because, of the 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Donald Trump after the Jan. 6 coup attempt, only two are still in Congress. Trump managed to get rid of the other eight and is trying to get rid of one of the remaining ones, Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-WA), in this R+11 district, which runs from Canada to Oregon in the middle of the state. Trump is supporting Navy veteran Jerrod Sessler. Also in the race is Tiffany Smiley, who wasn't at all smiley when she lost the Senate race in 2022.
  
  WA-05 is not at all gerrymandered (in fact; none of Washington is, as the maps have been drawn by a redistricting commission since the 1990s). It is close to a nice rectangle running from Canada to Oregon along the eastern edge of the state. This is the district from which Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) is retiring. Six Republicans and five Democrats have entered the jungle primary. The Republicans include Spokane County Treasurer Michael Baumgartner, state Rep. Jacqulin Maycumber, Trump administration official Brian Dansel, and Spokane City Council member Jonathan Bingle. The top fundraisers on the Democratic side are OB/GYN Bernadine Bank, who is an abortion-rights supporter (surprise!), former diplomat Carmela Conroy, and small businesswoman Ann Marie Danimus. The district is R+8, so the Democrat in the race will have their work cut out for them, and then some.
  
  The third district attracting interest in the Evergreen State is WA-06, which is the seat of retiring Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-WA). The district, which covers the Olympic Peninsula, is D+6, so the Democrat has the edge. The Democrats are hosting a fierce battle between state Sen. Emily Randall and state Commissioner of Public Lands Hilary Franz. Both have endorsements from high-profile Democrats. The only Republican to raise any money is state Sen. Drew MacEwen. It could end up being the two women at each other's throats until November, or else one of them against MacEwen.
  
  Rep. Kim Schrier (D-WA) faces three challengers in the D+1 swing district WA-08, one Republican and two Democrats. She will probably end up facing the Republican, banker Carmen Goers, and beating her.

That's a lot of attention to House races, but these primaries could ultimately determine which party controls the House, so they are very important. (V)

Karl Rove: Harris Will Soon Lead Trump Nationally

Recent national polls have Donald Trump and Kamala Harris in a statistical tie. A YouGov poll for CBS released Aug. 1 has Harris ahead 50% to 49%. This is much better than Joe Biden did at the end, but a statistical tie is still a statistical tie.

Bush's brain, Karl Rove, who knows a thing about elections and polling, recently made a prediction on Fox News. He said that Harris has the momentum that could leave her in the lead in September. He noted that of the most recent five national polls, Harris leads in three and Trump in two, and this is right after the Republican National Convention, when candidates normally get a bump. He also noted that Trump was leading Biden by 3 points, but he is ahead of Harris now by only 0.9 points, on average, and things are moving in the wrong direction for Trump. And when the Democratic National Convention happens, that will boost Harris even more. She is not well known and the wall-to-wall favorable publicity is sure to introduce her to many people with a lot of fanfare.

Rove also said that Trump is in a subordinate position now, something he hates. Harris is setting the tempo of the campaign, not him. All the news is about her. Worse yet, he can't find a nickname that any self-respecting third grader would, well, respect. "Lyin' Kamala Harris" might just not make it when "Lyin' Donald Trump" has been documented telling over 30,000 lies. (V)

George Conway: Term Limits Could Be Done without an Amendment

In a podcast with the Bulwark's publisher Sarah Longwell, Lawyer George Conway, ex-husband of Donald Trump's former campaign manager (and current adviser) Kellyanne Conway, said that Congress could enforce term limits on the Supreme Court without a constitutional amendment. Here is how it would work.

Every odd-numbered year, the first after his or her inauguration and the second 2 years later, the president would nominate a new justice for the Court. If the Senate confirmed the nominee, the justice would be seated. Every case would be decided by the chief justice and the eight most recently confirmed associate justices. The other justices would remain on the Supreme Court and would continue to draw their salaries as justices with "senior status." However, if one of the nine voting justices were to be recused, something that might happen more often if the Court adopted or Congress mandated a tougher code of ethics, then one of the senior justices would step in. This could also be the case if a justice was too ill to handle a case.

The appeals courts work somewhat like this. Judges there can take senior status after they have met certain age and service requirements. Then they are still on the panel and still get their salary but do less work. Congress would essentially just introduce a modified senior status system for the Supreme Court. Conway doesn't address the problem of what would happen if the Court declared the law to be unconstitutional, but we have addressed this before. To prevent the Court from vetoing this plan, Congress would have to first strip the Court of jurisdiction in cases relating to itself.

In the event of recusal or illness, some method would be needed to determine which senior justice got to fill in. Giving the chief justice that power would be akin to giving him an extra vote. Maybe someone could write a smartphone app to pick one at random or the chief could pull a name out of a hat in public. Alternatively, there could be a round-robin system in which they took turns. Anything other than giving the chief the power to pick one would probably work. (V)

Judge: Moss and Freeman May Now Start Seizing Giuliani's Assets

On Friday, Judge Sean Lane formally dismissed Rudy Giuliani's bankruptcy case. The stumbling block was a bill for $400,000 from Global Data Risk, an accounting firm hired by Giuliani's creditors to try to understand his finances. The judge ordered Giuliani to pay the bill and he apparently couldn't cough up the cash. The judge accepted a down payment of $100,000 and a promise to pay the rest as soon as possible.

To prevent Giuliani from weaseling out of that and also from weaseling out of paying his creditors, primarily (but not only) Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, the Georgia election workers he defamed, the judge also put liens on his condos in Manhattan and Florida. That means when they are sold, the proceeds first go to pay off Global Data Risk, the two women, and the other creditors. Giuliani only gets money from the (forced) sale of his assets if they exceed his outstanding obligations, which are north of $150 million. The two properties are thought to be worth about $10 million combined, so he won't see a penny from their sale.

But there is more bad news for poor Rudy. The dismissal now allows the defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems to go forward. They probably won't be able to get one red cent from him, but they may well proceed just to have a court officially declare that his claims about them were lies. On top of all this, there is a sexual harassment claim from his former employee Noelle Dunphy, which can now go forward.

How is Giuliani going to find lawyers to handle these cases when he is broke and owes his current lawyers over $3 million? The only thing we can think of is that he goes to Donald Trump and offers a deal the former president can't refuse. Giuliani could offer not to flip and rat on him in the Arizona fake electors case and the Georgia RICO case in return for Donald paying all of his many lawyers. It's a deal the deal-maker-in-chief might just take. (V)

Us: Election Workers Are Needed

Once in a rare while someone like Rudy Giuliani defames an election worker, and that leads to a $148 million judgment, but being an election worker is not normally a road to riches. Most poll workers are just ordinary citizens working for the local county government for a day out of a sense of civic responsibility (and a small amount of pay). Without them, elections could not be held at all because elections require hundreds of thousands of new workers for a single day (or possibly 2 days to include some training or 3 days if they are needed for vote counting). So volunteering to do this work is essential to making democracy work.

No doubt some of our readers are thinking: "I'd be willing to help out, but what do I do now?" Turns out there is a group trying to match up potential poll workers with local elections boards all over the country. It is powerthepolls.org. It acts as a broker connecting people who want to work at the polls with local election boards that need people to do it. It also provides information to potential poll workers so they can see what the deal is. It is a nonpartisan group that is just interested in making sure elections work smoothly.

To see how it works, go to powerthepolls.org/search and enter any ZIP code to see what the hours, compensation, and other details are for that ZIP code. If you are interested in finding out more, try it out.

Note that poll workers are different from poll watchers. Poll workers are temporary employees or contractors for the county they are in and are paid for their services (typically $100 for Election Day and $25 per hour of required training). You usually need to be at least 17 or 18 but you need not be a citizen in most cases. Poll watchers are highly partisan volunteers who are sent to the polls by one political party to look for mischief and try to stop it or at least document it and report it.

We encourage you to get involved in the election by becoming a poll worker. There is a need for hundreds of thousands of them. Lack of poll workers forces counties to eliminate polling places, meaning longer drives for voters and longer waits at the remaining ones. In 2018, there were 200,000 polling places across the U.S. In 2020, that dropped to 132,000. In 2022, it was down to 94,793. If not enough poll workers sign up, it will drop even more this year. Some large counties may end up with only one polling place if there aren't enough workers to staff more. That will mean huge lines at that polling place, with voters becoming discouraged and going home without voting. This can affect election outcomes. In any case, if it fits your schedule, consider signing up as a poll worker in your community. The PowerThePolls Website can get you started.

We have a number of readers who serve as poll workers. If you have general questions for them about the experience, let us know at comments@electoral-vote.com. If you are one of the poll-worker readers, and you're willing to answer a few questions, please give us a heads-up at comments@electoral-vote.com. (V)

---

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