A Great Day for Donald Trump, Part I: Let It Roll

Donald Trump had a very good day on Thursday, surely the best he's had this campaign cycle. And the very best of the news for him is that the Supreme Court heard his Fourteenth Amendment case, and signaled in just about every way possible that he's going to win, probably 8-1 or 9-0.

Lawyer-reader A.R. in Los Angeles listened to the oral arguments, and agreed to send in a brief report:

Not surprisingly, the Court did not get into the facts of the case (i.e., whether Trump is an insurrectionist) but focused solely on the question of whether the states can enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, especially in the absence of Congressional legislation. It was clear from the questions that the result the Court wants to reach is "No, the states do not have that authority."

That said, how they get to that result is less clear. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Neil Gorsuch were skeptical that Section 3 even applied to the presidency. But the other Justices were more nuanced in their approach and were mostly concerned about the processes that the states are using to evaluate this question and how courts are supposed to review those decisions: Do they use a deferential standard of review or, as Justice Amy Coney Barrett put it, "Do we watch the video ourselves with no guidance from below?" In other words, are the lower courts' decisions largely final, barring reversible error, or does every level of the court system make its own determination?

The squishiness of this made them all uncomfortable, which was an interesting dynamic to observe. This is a Court that has no qualms about overturning decades of legal precedent, finding that Congress has gone too far in its legislation or the executive branch has overstepped its authority, but in the absence of anything to really "judge" and a constitutional provision that has never been interpreted, they were very nervous. The Court even shied away from a request to define Section 3's terms, such as "insurrection" and "engaged in." They seemed more willing to tackle the term "officer" and whether the president is one. But short of that, they seem to want Congress to take the first stab at interpreting this section and deciding what its enforcement looks like. Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed ready to jump into the abyss and tackle the tough questions about what a state process under Section 3 should look like. She pointed out that if Congress fails to act, then this issue is not going away. It will only show up on their doorstep in some other posture. For example: What if Congress uses the Electoral Count Act to deny Trump certification under Section 3? Then what?

To me, the best answer of the morning came from Solicitor General Shannon Stevenson. When Justice Samuel Alito asked her about the "cascading effect" of different states perhaps reaching different answers about whether a candidate has engaged in insurrection, she responded, "... that's a feature of our process, not a bug." (Hey, does she read Electoral-Vote.com???) The states already determine who is qualified to appear on a state ballot under their laws and the Constitution, and if the Court is concerned about different standards, this is their opportunity to provide guidance about that. The states have their own processes by design under federalism, and if Congress believes that "federalism has run amok" they can act at any time. Such a perfect answer (and talk about poise under pressure)! In the end, it's unlikely the Supremes are going to own this hot potato and we'll likely end up with a decision reversing the Colorado Supreme Court.

Thanks, A.R.!

The consensus, after yesterday's hearing, was overwhelming. Everyone we looked at agreed with A.R.'s conclusion that SCOTUS is going to support Trump. Some of the headlines:

• The Washington Post: Supreme Court skeptical of challenge to Trump's eligibility
• SCOTUSblog: Supreme Court appears unlikely to kick Trump off Colorado ballot
• AP: The Supreme Court seems poised to reject efforts to kick Trump off the ballot over the Capitol riot
• Reuters: Trump ballot disqualification bid gets skeptical US Supreme Court reception
• Fox: SCOTUS hears Trump ballot oral arguments, justices appear skeptical of removal
• The Wall Street Journal: Supreme Court Appears Likely to Restore Donald Trump's Ballot Eligibility
• The New York Times: Supreme Court Justices Appear Skeptical of Arguments to Kick Trump Off State Ballots
• NBC News: Supreme Court signals unlikely to let Colorado kick Trump off ballot
• NPR: Supreme Court justices appear skeptical of effort to remove Trump from a state ballot
• The Hill: Supreme Court signals reluctance to disqualify Trump from ballot
• BBC: US Supreme Court sceptical of Colorado's move to bar Donald Trump from ballot

The dominant notion here appears to be "skeptical." Even the Brits picked up on it, despite not knowing how to spell "skeptical."

For our part, we still have to do Part III of the short series we were doing on the Fourteenth Amendment. Illness got in the way, but we don't have much time left before it's no longer useful, so we'll have it on Tuesday. (Z)

A Great Day for Donald Trump, Part II: What's On My Mind

Special Counsel Robert K. Hur, who was examining the classified documents that Joe Biden retained when he should not have done so, finished his work last week and submitted his 388-page report this week. Yesterday, the report was publicly released. The good news for Biden is that Hur recommended no charges be filed. The good news for Donald Trump is that Hur raked the President over the coals, portraying him as a feeble-minded old man, and declaring that Biden willfully kept the materials, but that he really can't be prosecuted because he barely understood what he was doing.

We'll start with the key passages from the report. First, the portion where Hur most aggressively slurs Biden's mental faculties:

Mr. Biden's recorded conversations with [autobiography ghost writer Mark] Zwonitzer from 2017 are often painfully slow, with Mr. Biden struggling to remember events and straining at times to read and relay his own notebook entries.

In his interview with our office, Mr. Biden's memory was worse. He did not remember when he was vice president, forgetting on the first day of the interview when his term ended ("if it was 2013—when did I stop being Vice President?"), and forgetting on the second day of the interview when his term began ("in 2009, am I still Vice President?"). He did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died. And his memory appeared hazy when describing the Afghanistan debate that was once so important to him. Among other things, he mistakenly said he "had a real difference" of opinion with General Karl Eikenberry, when, in fact, Eikenberry was an ally whom Mr. Biden cited approvingly in his Thanksgiving memo to President Obama.

And then the portion where Hur explains that he's recommending against charging Biden because the President is a doddering old fool:

We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory. Based on our direct interactions with and observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict him by then a former president well into his eighties of a serious felony that requires a mental state of willfulness.

You are to be forgiven if you think that sounds more like it was written by Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham, as opposed to a Department of Justice lawyer who is ostensibly supposed to be neutral.

These passages, along with many others, are simply beyond the pale. We say that for three reasons:

1. Hur did not make available his recordings of the interviews he alludes to, which means that not only is the voting public unable to judge his assessments for themselves, but also that there is zero context. For example, were the misstatements Hur alludes to cherry-picked, or are they examples of something that happened dozens of times? Did they appear to be actual misstatements, or were they potentially a byproduct of Biden's lifelong stuttering issues? Was Biden well-rested, or was he fatigued?
   
   For what it's worth, the one thing that is known (no thanks to Hur) is that the two interviews Biden sat for lasted 5 hours, and at least one of them took place the day after Hamas attacked Israel. Do you think maybe it is possible that Biden was on short sleep, and that he had other things on his mind?
   
   
2. Hur does not have the expertise to be assessing a person's mental state. If the Special Counsel planned to incorporate such "findings" in his document, and in particular if such findings were going to play a role in the decision to charge Biden or not, then he should have consulted someone (or, ideally, multiple someones) with the necessary training to make such judgments. This did not happen.
   
   It's worth noting that specific years are among the hardest things for human beings to remember, because the human brain isn't really wired to keep track of long-term timeframes, and because a set of four digits doesn't usually contain within itself any meaningful mnemonic elements (unless it's the year 1666, or something like that). In other words, it will be rather easier in 5 years, say, to remember that Carl Weathers and Toby Keith died in the Year of the Rabbit, as opposed to remembering that they died in 2024. Heck, (Z) is a historian, a field in which years kinda matter, and he also has memory skills that are, at very least, above-average. And yet, he still makes errors of this sort, both on this site and in lectures. Just this week, he told a class that the income tax was adopted in 1921, despite knowing full well it was adopted in 1913. It happens, and he is pretty sure it's not a sign that he's on the cusp of dementia. Because years are hard to remember, incidentally, (Z) always tells students on the first day of class that he will never, ever ask them a quiz question that requires them to remember a date.
   
   
3. It runs contrary to both Department of Justice policy, and to the general ethics of the legal profession, to editorialize in this way when deciding not to file charges. If a person is not convicted of a crime, and is not going to be convicted, then that means that they do not have a penalty they have to pay. Back-dooring a de facto penalty in there by slurring their reputation is sleazy.

So, why did Hur do it? There are two explanations that occur to us, and we suspect they are both partly on the mark. First, Hur is a Republican. He clerked for a conservative judge, worked for the Trump-era FBI, and then was appointed United States Attorney for the District of Maryland by Trump. It seems very probable that Hur saw this as an opportunity to score some partisan points and to do his part to defeat Joe Biden. It is also well within the realm of possibility that he'd like to be considered for a plum appointment, should there be a second Trump administration—maybe a federal judgeship, or maybe the Attorney Generalship. If so, Hur's in good shape on that front, as of yesterday.

Second, when a person or a panel is appointed to examine a particular question, there is much reluctance to come back with the answer: "Sorry! Didn't find anything!" Hur was on the job for a little over a year, despite this being a fairly simple matter. Surely he did not want to make it seem like he spun his wheels the whole time, nor did he want it to seem like the government wasted its money. At the same time, filing charges was clearly not in the cards—presumably because Biden's actions did not rise to the standard necessary to be criminal. So, Hur wrote up an explanation that effectively gives the impression that he did find dirt, and he really thinks there was wrongdoing, but he just can't recommend charges because of those darn juries with their darn feelings. One can see how that frames Hur's work as much more noble and substantive, especially in right-wing circles, as compared to "Sorry! Didn't find anything!" or recommending charges and having them go nowhere.

In any case, Hur (like James Comey before him), has had a giant political impact as a result of a "fair" report that he wrote about a Democrat running against Donald Trump. As you can imagine, Trump and his supporters are taking two lines of attack here. The first involves grabbing the low-hanging fruit that Hur left there for right-wingers to pick, and harping on Biden's cognitive abilities. For example, four of the top five stories on Fox last night were on this theme:

As a sidebar, when navigating to capture that screenshot, (Z) accidentally mistyped the name of the site as Fox Mews (note "m" instead of "n"). Probably not a sign of cognitive impairment. But it probably is a more accurate name for that media operation.

The second line of attack, which is the former president's preferred angle, is that the decision not to charge is proof that the system is rigged. Here is what Trump said in a statement:

THIS HAS NOW PROVEN TO BE A TWO-TIERED SYSTEM OF JUSTICE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL SELECTIVE PROSECUTION! The Biden Documents Case is 100 times different and more severe than mine. I did nothing wrong, and I cooperated far more. What Biden did is outrageously criminal.

Nikki Haley, who apparently still hasn't decided if she is, or is not, running against Trump, made the exact same argument yesterday. These folks do not seem to care that you can't have it both ways; if Hur's assessments of Biden's memory are to be deemed reliable, then Hur cannot also be an incompetent hack who is in the bag for the President. It's gotta be one or the other, right?

At this point, let us remind everyone, for the umpteenth time, that Trump's claims are nonsense. Regardless of what Biden did, or what he thought, before his set of classified documents came to light, the fact is that he is the one who revealed their existence, at which point he willingly turned the documents over to NARA. Meanwhile, regardless of what Trump did, or what he thought, before HIS set of classified documents came to light, the fact is that the revelation came from outside, Trump did not return the documents even after being told multiple times to do so, and then he actively interfered with attempts to retrieve them. It is also the case that, at least based on what is publicly known, the Biden documents were mundane, while some of the Trump documents were extremely sensitive. If anyone is potentially guilty of "outrageously criminal" behavior here, it is Trump.

Just as the Republicans knew they had just been handed political gold, the White House knew it had a big problem on its hands. And so, Biden held a hastily organized press conference (as you can see above, from the Fox website). The President came out with guns blazing, focusing in particular on the cheap shot about his son's death:

I don't need anyone, anyone, to remind me when he passed away. How the hell dare he raise that. Frankly, when I was asked the question, I thought to myself, was it any of their damn business? The simple truth is that I sat for five hours, two days, over events going back 40 years. At the same time I was managing a national crisis.

The press conference was chaotic, and Biden was emotional, so he probably did not convey the message of "a firm hand at the wheel" that he hoped to convey. It did not help that he had another gaffe, accidentally referring to Mexico when he meant Egypt. Although again in his defense, (Z) has literally made that exact same error in lectures. The reason is that people remember things associatively, and that those are the two nations famous for having ancient pyramids. In any event, Biden is going to have to rethink his strategy of avoiding sit-down interviews, because he needs to convey, many times, that he's not losing his marbles. In particular, he really ought to change course and sit for a Super Bowl Sunday interview.

And finally, there's one other person worthy of mention, and of criticism, before wrapping this up: AG Merrick Garland. Garland appointed a special counsel here—when one was probably not called for—to avoid looking "political." He picked a staunch Republican for the job—when he really should have been looking for someone whose politics are not known—to avoid looking "political." He released the report—even though its editorializing violates DoJ policy and thus is basis for withholding release—to avoid looking "political." And now, the whole mess has become enormously political. Biden cannot ask for Garland's resignation right now, as it would look like Saturday Night Massacre, redux, but he would be entirely justified in doing so given how badly the AG has mishandled this whole matter.

The New York Times columnist and Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences winner Paul Krugman personally spoke with Biden in August for an hour. Krugman says that Biden is "perfectly lucid, with a good grasp of events." He calls Hur's report a "hit job" containing "snide, unwarranted, obviously politically motivated slurs." Here is the link if you are a Times subscriber. (Z)

A Great Day for Donald Trump, Part III: Old Nevada Moon

This news isn't anywhere near as consequential for Donald Trump as the two stories above, but it's still good news for him: He destroyed Ryan Binkley, the only other candidate on the ballot in yesterday's Nevada caucuses, 99.2% to 0.8%. Trump gets 26 more delegates as a result.

In addition, there were also Republican caucuses yesterday in the U.S. Virgin Islands. The results there were more typical since, unlike Nevada, there weren't two different elections with two different sets of candidates. Anyhow, Trump took 74% of the Virgin Islands vote, while Nikki Haley took 26%. Presumably, the Haley campaign will put out a statement tomorrow reminding everyone that their candidate did not campaign in the Virgin Islands, and did not spend any money in the Virgin Islands, so you shouldn't infer anything from the results.

In the end, there is only one inference that matters, and anyone and everyone is going to make it whether or not Haley likes it: Donald Trump is going to be the Republican candidate for president this year, barring some personal disaster that renders him unavailable. Haley effectively admitted as much this week, telling reporters that she's definitely not dropping out before Super Tuesday. That, of course, means that once Super Tuesday rolls around in just under 4 weeks, and she gets steamrolled yet again, then she'll throw in the towel. That said, one wonders if a humiliating defeat in her home state on Feb. 24 might shorten her timeline. (Z)

A Bad Week for Mike Johnson: I'll Never Be Free

This is a relatively low-attention news story, but we think it actually reveals a great deal. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) endorsed Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-MT) in this year's U.S. Senate race in Montana, even though Rosendale isn't an official candidate yet (he's expected to become one over the weekend). Yesterday, however, Johnson reversed course and said that he's not endorsing Rosendale and that, in fact, he never endorsed Rosendale.

This is an unbelievably sloppy unforced error. It is no secret that Rosendale is not only a firebrand, but that he already lost a Senate race to Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) in 2018. We've written it at least three or four times, and we are hardly as dialed in as the Speaker of the House of Representatives. And yet, Johnson made the endorsement (despite his claims to the contrary). Then, he very publicly reversed course, undoubtedly due to blowback and arm-twisting behind the scenes.

We would suggest this speaks to two things, both of them also evident in this week's failed House votes on impeaching Alejandro Mayorkas and on Israel funding. The first is that Johnson is a pretty mediocre politician. Yes, he got himself elected, which is something, but being Speaker means you're one of the biggest fish in the biggest pond out there. And he's clearly not up to it. When Nancy Pelosi, or Paul Ryan, or John Boehner were in the big chair, they did not come within a country mile of endorsing a candidate until they were 100% sure. But once they were, they took the plunge and did not look back. For Johnson to flip-flop, so publicly and so rapidly, makes him look weak and indecisive.

More importantly, the story is also a reminder of how tenuous Johnson's grip on power really is. As Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) pointed out yesterday, Johnson wasn't the Republicans' "first-choice speaker, not their second-choice speaker, not their third-choice speaker." He does not have the résumé or the donor/power base to justify being speaker. And he's got caucus members who are impossible to please, and who are always willing to consider firing him at the drop of a hat. These shadows will always loom over him, for however long he holds the gavel.

Consequently, Johnson does not lead, he just runs around trying to keep the various Republican factions happy, whether it's with silly impeachments or by de-endorsing Matt Rosendale. It's true, sometimes a leader has to lead from behind. But most of the time, they have to lead from the front, as Pelosi did in particularly memorable fashion. Johnson can't do it, because he doesn't have the skills, and he doesn't have the political capital.

Not surprisingly, the griping from Johnson's House colleagues is in full effect right now. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) tweeted that the House has turned into an "unmitigated disaster" since Kevin McCarthy was forced out. Numerous other Republicans complained about the embarrassing failed votes this week. Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) spoke of a "lack of leadership." Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) drew the same parallel as we did: "He needs to count votes before he comes to the floor. This message of not impeaching Mayorkas sent a wrong message. I think you need to make sure. And as bad as Pelosi was, she knew her votes before it took place."

Even some high-profile non-politicians are taking shots at Johnson. Recently, the Speaker told a group of supporters that he was praying, and that he heard the voice of God in his head, telling him that he was going to be a new Moses. Father James Martin, who is a pretty big mover and shaker in the Vatican, found that presumptuous, it would seem. The padre remarked: "Not everything that pops into your head during prayer is from God."

In short, our prediction that Johnson would not last the year is looking pretty good right now. Certainly better than the Speaker's chances of parting the Red Sea. (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Black Is The Color of My True Love's Hair

Last week's headline theme was on the tough side, as we predicted it would be. Here is the answer key, courtesy of M.H. in Ottawa, ON, Canada:

The second hint got it for me: Each contains the name of a Nobel laureate!

• Biden's Sharp Words about Trump: Phillip Allen Sharp, Physiology or Medicine, 1993
• Fight Fire with Fire?: Andrew Fire, Physiology or Medicine, 2006
• The Buck Stops Here?: Pearl S. Buck, Literature, 1938 or Linda B. Buck, Physiology or Medicine, 2004
• Who's the King?: Martin Luther King Jr., Peace, 1964
• Hemingway, Eichmann, "The Old Man and the Sea": Ernest Hemingway, Literature, 1954
• Way to Go, Einstein(s): Albert Einstein, Physics, 1921 (though you could maybe argue Henry Way Kendall, Physics, 1990)
• A Hell of a Surprise: Stefan Hell, Chemistry, 2014

Very impressive, M.H.! You even caught the two special cases (the two Bucks, and Way/Einstein). The first hint, as a reminder, was that the theme was explosive, in a manner of speaking. The second was that solving the puzzle is a Nobel pursuit, at least for those who can't spell. Both are references to Alfred Nobel, inventor of dynamite, and founder of the Nobel Prizes.

Here are the first 25 readers to get it right:

1. B.M. in Chico, CA
2. G.G. in Nottinghamshire, England, UK
3. B.U. in St. Louis, MO
4. M.B. in Marietta, GA
5. T.P. in Woodland Hills CA
6. E.P. in Long Beach, CA
7. T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts
8. M.A. in Park Ridge, IL
9. S.K. in Drexel Hill, PA
10. N.H. in London, England, UK
11. M.S. in Canton, NY
12. T.F. in Craftsbury Common, VT
13. M.B. in Albany, NY
14. K.R. in Austin, TX
15. D.E. in High Springs, FL
16. A.A. in South Orange, NJ
17. F.Y. in Ann Arbor, MI
18. D.O. in Brookline, MA
19. J.D. in Boston, MA
20. D.K. in Orofino, ID
21. D.M. in Burnsville, MN
22. Z.K. in Albany, NY
23. T.L. in West Orange, NJ
24. G.K. in Blue Island, IL
25. M.H. in Ottawa

We also heard from several readers who are personally acquainted with one or more of the Nobel laureates we named; apparently Andrew Fire really gets around. We also got a sizable number of incorrect, but creative, guesses. Perhaps none more so than this from J.G. in Covington, KY, for an answer of "The Holocaust":

• Sharp: Refers to Martha and Waitstill Sharp, two of the founding members of the Unitarian Service Committee. They personally traveled to Europe several times, including Nazi-occupied areas, to help refugees escape. They were the second and third U.S. citizens recognized as Righteous Among the Nations by Yad Vashem.
  
  
• Fire: While this could refer to the crematoria, I attribute it to the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933, which abolished the constitutional protections of private citizens, ushering in the Nazi dictatorship.
  
  
• Buck: Refers to Dorothea Buck, a victim of the Nazi policy of forced sterilization. She became an advocate for reform in the treatment of mental health, and forced the German psychiatric profession to confront the part German mental health professionals had played in Nazi persecution.
  
  
• King (part 1): There are at least two candidates for this one. The obvious one is the legendary King Christian X of Denmark. While he never wore a yellow star, as the legend claims, he did encourage the national rescue effort that successfully saved most of Denmark's Jewish population, smuggling them by boat to neutral Sweden.
  
  
• King (part 2): It may also refer to King Michael I of Romania. During the war Romania was controlled by their Hitler-allied Prime Minister Ion Antonescu, who began deporting Jewish citizens. Persuaded by his mother, Princess Helen (later declared one of the Righteous), King Michael worked to prevent deportations, and to secure the return of Jewish citizens imprisoned in ghettos and camps. Their work saved over half the Jewish population of Romania, despite Antonescu's best efforts. Finally, in 1944 King Michael wrested back enough control to sever the alliance with Hitler and have Antonescu arrested.
  
  
• Eichmann: The master of the "Final Solution," Adolf Eichmann coordinated and oversaw the mass deportation and murder of millions of Jewish people.
  
  
• Hemingway: Though a more tenuous connection, it should probably be mentioned that the Nazis burned Hemingway's books, due to the strong condemnation of war that ran throughout his works.
  
  
• Einstein: Probably the most famous Jewish person to escape Nazi persecution. He even had a price on his head, with Nazi organizations proclaiming he should be hanged. (Sound familiar?)
  
  
• Hell: Self-explanatory

Not what we were thinking, obviously, but we are inclined to count this as a winning answer, nonetheless. Although we wouldn't actually use anything Holocaust-related as a theme, given our rule against making a game of human suffering.

As to this week's theme, they're all song titles, so that means that all of the words to the right of the colon matter, and that the Trivial Pursuit category would be Arts and Entertainment. For an additional hint, we'll say that we originally had a title of a song performed by Miley Cyrus, but then decided she didn't count towards the theme.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com, preferably with subject line "February 9 Headlines." (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: When It All Goes South

This is going to be one of the shortest Schadenfreudes ever. Since we did Sesame Street for freudenfreude last week, however, we thought we'd continue the theme.

As readers will recall, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) went on TV after the failed impeachment vote this week to whine that the Democrats "hid" Rep. Al Green (D-TX). In response, Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-CA) tweeted this clip of The Count showing how to count to four:

Sometimes, less is more. Well played, Mr. Representative. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: Take Me to Your Party

A couple of weeks ago, we ran a This Week in Freudenfreude entitled "Ladies Be Seated," about the all-female city council that now leads St. Paul, MN. Reader D.M. in Burnsville, MN, proposed, and was inspired to write, a follow-up, which we thought was a good idea. So, here is the first-ever This Week in Freudenfreude written by a guest contributor:

As a former resident of St. Paul, I'd like to say that I appreciated the item "Ladies Be Seated," about the City's governance over the years, as well as the kind words from its friends and neighbors that Sunday. All were deserved. The sixties and seventies were times of turmoil and change, in many ways laying the foundations for the current state of institutions that we take for granted today, a generation (or two) later.

Digging deeper, St. Paul is full of interesting history.

I (a white man) worked with and became friends with Bill Wilson (a Black man*) during the short while that we both were employed by 3M, a St. Paul-based company. After I was drafted and had to leave Minnesota during the Vietnam War, I learned that Bill was a member of a Citizen Participation Forum, an early experiment in good governance way back in the early '70's.

Bill was recognized as a leader, and was elected Governor of that Forum. Soon after, in 1978, he was elected to the City Council of St. Paul, where he served over a dozen years, the last two as President. His election was not only notable for his struggle for justice and equality for all people, but also because he was the first Black member to serve on the Council. After his time in office, he continued serving the people by founding Higher Ground Academy in St. Paul. This is a picture of him taken late in his life:



That is Melvin Carter, St. Paul's first Black mayor, shaking hands with Wilson shortly before his passing in 2019.

The very first non-white person in St. Paul's City Hall; that's an achievement worth noting. Bill quietly moved in without fanfare or drama, became an effective member for many years, and then quietly moved on to other challenges. But Bill had a secret superpower, too: his wife Willie Mae. She was already a civil rights activist when she met Bill. After their marriage, she became a community organizer in St. Paul with the Urban League. During this period, she once was labeled as an "instigator" by some members of the War On Poverty board for "stirring up the people." This did not dissuade her. While a lifelong member of the Urban League, she also served in successively more challenging roles to bring justice for all people. Both worked all their lives to serve their fellow Minnesotans. Willie Mae died not long after her husband, in 2021.

* - At the time, Black people were called "Negroes." I once asked Bill why, since Caucasians referred to themselves as "white," why Negroes didn't refer to themselves as "Black"? Bill had no answer, so the matter was tabled for later action.

Thanks, D.M.! And have a good weekend, all! (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 in school, at work, etc., please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend or share some other way.

---The Votemaster and Zenger