Legal News, Part I: Apparently, There ARE Limits to the Second Amendment

On Friday, the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in U.S. v. Rahimi, a case that challenged the federal government's right to bar domestic abusers from owning guns. With Chief Justice John Roberts writing for the 8-1 majority, the Court said that it was acceptable to do so in cases where the abuser has a restraining order against them. Thus did the Supremes overturn a ruling from the arch-conservative Fifth Circuit, much to the disappointment of Associate Justice Clarence Thomas—who was, unsurprisingly, the "1" in the 8-1.

Lawyer-reader A.R. in Los Angeles sent in a few remarks on the ruling:

It turns out that the Fifth Circuit is too far-right even for this Supreme Court, as SCOTUS overturned the Fifth and upheld the federal law banning gun possession by those with a restraining order against them. In writing for the majority, John Roberts goes to great pains to say that they're not retreating from their position that everything is frozen in time in the 18th and 19th centuries when it comes to the Second Amendment. No need to abandon originalism here because, as luck would have it, there were analogous regulations even two centuries ago to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Whew! The Court can continue its march back in time, while also protecting women from the abusers who would otherwise murder them. Of course, Clarence Thomas wouldn't even do that. His lone dissent insists that because, in colonial times, domestic violence was a "private matter" and such "interpersonal" affairs would never have been regulated, modern attempts to prevent spousal abuse by taking away the abuser's gun violate the Constitution. That's the type of tradition he wants to revive.

This could be why Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett has been doing some line-drawing in the past week. Even more interesting than the outcome is the conversation Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Barrett seem to be having with their concurrences. If there's such a thing as man-splaining in a Supreme Court concurrence, Kavanaugh's is it. He is essentially giving an exhaustive (and boring) lecture over 24 long pages on originalism and all its nuances and applications, as he sees it. He devotes a lot of ink to his mentor Antonin Scalia, as if invoking Scalia will lend more legitimacy to his musings. Kavanaugh responds to Barrett's criticism of the drift of "history and tradition" to encompass the late 19th century, which, last time I checked, was well after the country's founding. According to him, this "post-ratification" analysis is equally important in illuminating how to ascertain original intent. And anything else, like the strict-scrutiny analysis the court has employed for other rights, is just "policy-making" cloaked as judicial interpretation. I found the whole thing to be dripping with condescension.

Barrett, meanwhile, more fully explained her skepticism about this practice (while only taking 4 pages to do it). One note: don't confuse her careful parsing of the practice as a rejection of originalism. Not at all—she just wants it to be actual originalism and not this fake nonsense that the other conservatives are peddling to get to their desired result. As she notes, "particular gun regulations—even if from the ratification era—do not themselves have the status of constitutional law." And "historical regulations reveal a principle, not a mold."

So, while encouraging, I'm not prepared to say we're at 3-3-3. We'll know more when the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) decision comes out. If Barrett votes with the other women that states can't deny women emergency healthcare, then we may have an interesting shift happening.

Thanks, A.R.!

To this, we will add the political dimension, which is... there isn't one, we think. Democrats can't take ownership of the Rahimi decision because it was accomplished with more Republican-appointee votes (5) than Democratic-appointee votes (3). Republicans can't take ownership because much of their base will be unhappy about anything that trims the Second Amendment. And Republicans can't rail against the decision because it was their justices who made it, and because "on the side of domestic abusers" is not a great place to be.

However, there are some other decisions likely to come down in the next week that are going to be giant hot potatoes, from a political vantage point. The EMTALA case is one of those, while the Trump immunity case is another. Normally, the Court releases opinions on Mondays and Thursdays, so one or both could come down today. Alternatively, they could drop the hottest of hot potatoes, which is the Trump immunity decision, on Thursday. That might deflect some attention, since there will be so much focus on the debate. On the other hand, it might heighten attention, since there would likely be a debate question or two about the decision.

SCOTUS could also wait until next Monday for the Trump decision; that's the last "regular" decision-announcing day before the Court's self-imposed, though occasionally disregarded, deadline of July 1 for releasing decisions. Another possibility is to release it on a non-standard day, like this Friday, which the Court does on rare occasions. We'll note that Samuel Alito has been absent from the Court for the past couple of sessions, leading to conspiratorial thinking that he's dragging his feet so as to keep the Trump decision on hold for as long as he can. If so, then any release date is possible, including something well into July, or even August.

One last thing worth noting. Roberts' decision in this case tried to establish two pretty clear standards. The first was that there are historical analogues for bans on abusive people having guns. The second was that if you have a restraining order, that means a judge has weighed in and decided you are dangerous. Not so for accused domestic abusers who don't have restraining orders, and so are still legally allowed to have guns.

So, for a gun ban targeted at specific people to be legal, there has to be historical precedent, and there pretty much has to be a judge involved in making the determination. You know what they didn't have 200 years ago? Laws banning drug users from buying guns. And you know who was never subjected to court scrutiny during his period of gun ownership? Hunter Biden. So, he and his lawyers (privately) cheered Friday's ruling, because they now have all kinds of ammo (no pun intended) to try to get his conviction overturned. (Z)

Legal News, Part II: Fake Electors Case Dismissed in Nevada

It took a long time for Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford (D) to bring a case against his state's fake Trump electors. And when he did it, he chose to pursue the matter in Clark County, which is where Las Vegas is located. Ford had an argument for doing so, since some of the fake electors live in Clark County, and since the scheme was effectively an attempt to defraud all Nevada voters (or, at least, all Nevada voters who voted for someone other than Donald Trump). However, it surely did not escape Ford's attention that Clark County is the state's bluest county, while most of the rest of Nevada is very red. Here is the state's 2020 electoral map:

The only other blue county, besides Clark, is Washoe, which is where Reno is located.

Judge Mary Kay Holthus thought this decision was kosher enough that she allowed the trial to be calendered (it was supposed to start in January). But, asked by the defense to consider the question of venue, she concluded that they had a point. Announcing her decision on Friday, she said that Carson City County (yes, that is the correct name) is where the case should have been filed, since that is where the fake electoral certificates were signed. So, she dismissed the case without prejudice. Note that Carson City County is roughly 20 points redder than Clark County.

This decision left Ford with three choices. First, he could attempt to refile in Washoe County, which is much closer to the "scene of the crime," but is still blue. That is defensible (and Holthus hinted as much) because Washoe is much larger than Carson City and so is better equipped to handle a high-profile case. Second, he could attempt to refile in Carson City, where there would be no question of venue, but plenty of fanatically Trumpy voters. The issue with either of these options is that the statute of limitations (3 years) has run on the underlying crimes. That may or may not be an issue, since the clock theoretically stops once an indictment is filed. But it's an angle that the defense has vowed to pursue if Ford tries to re-file.

The third option is to go to the Nevada Supreme Court and ask them to overrule Holthus. This is the option that Ford says he will pursue. This makes sense, since he's going to end up arguing procedural questions one way or the other, and this route is the only one that gets him the Clark County jury he wants. If he loses on this line of argument, he can still go back, try to re-file, and argue that the statute of limitations does not apply.

After Holthus announced her decision, Republicans were curiously quiet about it, despite its ostensibly being an exoneration. Why? We don't know, but here are some theories:

• Crowing about one fake electors case is a reminder that there are three others still pending.
• Crowing about a fake electors case is a reminder that Republicans tried to overthrow the 2020 election.
• The only person Republicans care about defending is Donald Trump, and he wasn't an indictee here.
• Republicans were occupied this weekend with other things, like defending the notion that Joe Biden is a dictator.
• The case isn't really dead yet, and it might not be wise to claim victory prematurely. Although "premature" is Donald Trump's middle name, so maybe we're wrong about this one.

Anyhow, this story is at an end for now. We'll see soon if the case rises from the dead. (Z)

There Are Some High-Profile Primaries Tomorrow

Another round of primaries is nigh, and there are some biggies this week. (V) normally writes these previews, but given his current travels, it's up to (Z) to take a crack at it, so keep your fingers crossed. Here we go:

• Governor, Utah: Gov. Spencer Cox (R-UT) is reasonably popular, is a member of the LDS Church and is an incumbent. We mention his primary, against state Rep. Phil Lyman (R), because it's the only gubernatorial primary this week. However, it's not going to be interesting. Cox is going to crush Lyman. The only question is if the margin of victory will be in the 30s, the 40s or the 50s. If you are a Utahn, you can't even give yourself some excitement by wagering on how big the margin will be, because Utah is one of only two states that does not have any form of legalized gambling (Hawaii is the other).
  
  
• U.S. Senate, Utah: Since the gubernatorial race is a given, as are the House races, the Senate Republican primary is the only Utah contest this week that's actually interesting. Why? Because Donald Trump has endorsed Mayor Trent Staggs (R-Riverton), but the polls give Rep. John Curtis (R-UT) a lead of between 18 and 34 points. The polling of congressional races is notoriously imprecise, but it's rarely THAT imprecise. Trump has been making very safe picks this primary season, and so if his candidate here goes belly-up, it will actually be his first failed endorsement. Not a huge surprise in Utah, which is the least Trumpy red state.
  
  
• It's Up to You, New York...: Control of the House could well hinge on New York State, since the Democratic legislature's less-than-effective adventures in gerrymandering resulted in eight districts that are competitive (PVI from D+5 to R+5). Here's a brief rundown:
  
  

  District	PVI	Occupant
  NY-01	R+3	Nick LaLota (R)
  NY-02	R+3	Andrew Garbarino (R)
  NY-03	D+2	Tom Suozzi (D)
  NY-04	D+5	Anthony D'Esposito (R)
  NY-17	D+3	Mike Lawler (R)
  NY-18	D+1	Pat Ryan (D)
  NY-19	EVEN	Marc Molinaro (R)
  NY-22	D+1	Brandon Williams (R)

  
  As you can see, if the Democrats can get even a smallish blue wave going, they could flip four or five seats. On the other hand, if there's a smallish red wave, they could lose a couple.
  
  We are going to try to write up all of these primary contests on Tuesday night, but there are quite a lot of them. And we know we have a lot of New York readers. So, if anyone has any comments or insights about these races (or any of the ones being contested on Tuesday), please do let us know at comments@electoral-vote.com.
  
  
• NY-16: Nobody doubts this district will be represented by a Democrat in the next Congress, since it is D+20. The question of which Democrat is of enough interest that a new record has been set for the most spending on a House primary (it's up to about $25 million). The core issue here is Israel; current occupant Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) takes the critical-of-Israel view. His opponent, Westchester County Executive George Latimer (D), takes the not-critical-of-Israel point of view, and has been backed by AIPAC, the pro-Israel super PAC, to the tune of almost $15 million.
  
  Bowman appears to be getting desperate. He asked a prominent Jewish constituent for a picture of them together, to illustrate that Bowman likes Jews, he just doesn't much care for Israel. The constituent declined, saying he doesn't want to be the Representative's "Court Jew." We didn't know that sort of position still existed, but apparently it's open if anyone is interested. Meanwhile, over the weekend, Bowman held a rally with other progressive members of Congress where he told the crowd "We are gonna show fu**ing AIPAC the power of the motherfu**ing South Bronx!" and "My opponent supports genocide. My opponent and AIPAC are the ones destroying our democracy."
  
  We do not presume to have our finger on the pulse of NY-16, but all of this makes it appear as if Bowman's internal polling is giving him bad news, and he's getting desperate. So, if we had to wager, we'd wager that Latimer is going to win this thing.
  
  
• CO-03: At R+7, this one really shouldn't be competitive. However, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), who is fleeing for the redder pastures of CO-04, has burned some bridges, and is also leaving behind a pretty well situated Democrat in Adam Frisch, who's sitting on a mountain of "we dislike Boebert" money. In hopes of goosing Frisch's chances, the Democrats are doing some ratfu**ing, running commercials claiming that Republican candidate Ron Hanks is too conservative for Colorado, and that he's just too close to Donald Trump. The goal here, obviously, is to get far-right voters excited about Hanks, so he will get the nomination over the much-more-electable Jeff Hurd.
  
  
• CO-04: This is the district that Boebert will use to try to keep her career going. The good news for her is that it is an open seat (thanks to the early retirement of Ken Buck, R) and that the district is R+13. The bad news is that she's a carpetbagger who lives nowhere near the district and who doesn't know its issues, and she's got a long list of competitors. Another problem, which is wonky but very real, is that Boebert could not run in the race to fill out Buck's term without resigning her seat. So, what she needs is for Republicans to check the box for Greg Lopez in the special election, but then for Boebert in the primary. That's... tricky, although Lopez is not running for a full term, so he's not on the list of primary candidates.
  
  This weekend, John Padora, one of the Democrats running to face the Republican primary winner, released an ad filmed in the theater seat where Boebert engaged in shenanigans a few months back. We don't know exactly what his plan was here, since his only faint hope of winning is to face off against the unpopular Congresswoman. In any case, the ad could have an effect on the GOP primary by reminding some voters of the seamier side of Boebert's career. Polling for the primary has been all over the place and, again, congressional primary polls are shaky, at best. So, seeing if the Representative can hold on will probably be the single most dramatic story of the night.
  
  
• CO-07 and CO-08: With a PVI of D+4 and EVEN, these are Colorado's two competitive districts. They are represented by Brittany Pettersen (D) and Yadira Caraveo (D), each of whom will learn the identity of their opponents tomorrow.

And now you have your viewing guide for Tuesday night. (Z)

It's Debate Week!

The stars have aligned in such a way that this week's presidential debate could be the most impactful in recent memory. Maybe the most impactful ever. So, we'll probably have an item each day this week, running down that day's storylines. Here's the first round:

• Paging Captain Obvious: Mitch Landrieu, who is one of the many Biden campaign co-chairs, appeared on Meet the Press this weekend. And he hinted that the President just might bring up Donald Trump's criminal conviction. Gee, you think?
  
  
• Physician, Shut Thyself Up: Rep. Ronny Jackson (R-TX) spent the weekend belaboring the Republican talking point that Joe Biden uses drugs before the debates—either Adderall or cocaine—and that he should therefore submit to a drug test both before and after the debate. Before... and after? Does he think the President is going to snort a line backstage during the commercial break? If so, the Representative seems to have confused Biden with Donald Trump Jr.
  
  It is exceedingly unethical for a physician to presume to diagnose someone they have not examined. It is worse when that physician has the gravitas that comes with being a member of Congress, a former flag officer in the Navy, and a former physician to the president. It is worse still when they don't really believe what they are saying, and are just using their "diagnosis" for political reasons. Jackson is an embarrassment to his former profession. Come to think of it, he's an embarrassment to his current profession, too.
  
  
• Resetting Expectations: Meanwhile, Trump and his acolytes spent the weekend trying to reset expectations for Biden. Trump himself continued to note that Biden is a top-notch debater. Trump surrogate and wannabe VP, Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND), appeared on CNN on Sunday and declared: "The guy's run for office more than a dozen times. He's run for president four times. He's been campaigning since President Nixon was in office. This guy has got the ability."
  
  It is our opinion that these attempts to reset the narrative will not work, for three reasons. First, most of the verbiage (excepting Burgum's CNN appearance) is being delivered to the faithful, who already know Trump won the debate, even before it starts. They're sure of it. Second, the Republicans have spent nearly 4 years tearing Biden down as old and feeble-minded. That's not reversible in a week or two. Third, in order to discount Biden's performance, Republicans are simultaneously arguing that he's the sharpest debater this side of Abraham Lincoln, but also that he's so far gone that he needs drugs to perform. Both arguments are meant to discount his performance, but they are also largely at odds with one another. The GOP really should have picked one of the two talking points and stuck with it.
  
  
• Gobbledygook: As you may know, Trump is in the habit of going off on tangents that are basically nonsensical. We don't usually mention it when it happens because they're frequent enough that they are barely newsworthy. However, over the weekend, the Biden campaign used its Dark Brandon eX-Twitter account to remind people of the weird monologue that Trump unleashed at his rally in Nevada a couple of weeks ago. He was talking about a manufacturer of electric boats in South Carolina:

  So I said, let me ask you a question, and he said, nobody ever asked this question and it must be because of MIT, my relationship to MIT. Very smart.
  
  He goes, I say, what would happen if the boat sank from its weight? And you're in the boat and you have this tremendously powerful battery and the battery is now underwater and there's a shark that's approximately 10 yards over there, by the way, a lot of shark attacks lately, do you notice that a lot of shark?
  
  I watched some guys justifying it today. Well, they weren't really that angry. They bit off the young lady's leg because of the fact that they were, they were not hungry, but they misunderstood what who she was? These people are.
  
  He said there's no problem with sharks. They just didn't really understand a young woman swimming now. It really got decimated and other people do a lot of shark attacks.
  
  So I said, so there's a shark 10 yards away from the boat, 10 yards or here, do I get electrocuted if the boat is sinking? Water goes over the battery, the boat is sinking. Do I stay on top of the boat and get electrocuted or do I jump over by the shark and not get electrocuted?
  
  Because I will tell you he didn't know the answer. He said, you know, nobody's ever asked me that question. I said, I think it's a good question. I think there's a lot of electric current coming through that water. But you know what I'd do if there was a shark or you get electrocuted, I'll take electrocution every single time.

  We added paragraph breaks, which the Biden campaign did not, to try to make it more readable. But the breaks don't help all that much. And watching the video, even if you start a few minutes before this portion, doesn't help either. Trump has previously demonstrated an obsession with shark attacks, which isn't too surprising, since his knowledge of pop culture ends in the 1970s, and the movie Jaws was a huge hit in 1975. He seems to be combining that with a critique of electric vehicles... maybe? We looked on the Internet for people who might have a better explanation, and nobody seems to be able to make sense of it.
  
  In any case, what we will point out here is that the shark sidebar happened when Trump's teleprompter went down. What was the underlying reason that his mind went off the rails? Maybe he was tired. Maybe he was overheated. Maybe it's cognitive decline. Maybe he's the one who uses Adderall to get hopped up, and he took a bit too much. Maybe he just gets overly comfortable when he's among his own people, and starts riffing. We do not presume to know what happened. But we do know he won't have a teleprompter at the debate. So, Trump's people are undoubtedly working very hard to convince him not to let his train of thought wander. Whether or not they are successful could have a big impact on how well he does at the debate.
  
  
• Where to watch: Last week, we wrote that the debate would be on CNN, and that the network would have a livestream that it would undoubtedly post sometime this week. A few readers wrote in and said that other networks are going to simulcast the event. This is probably true, but we cannot get ironclad confirmation, as yet. We have no doubt that all will be revealed by Wednesday night, and so we will make clear which networks are on board then.
  
  CNN has not yet posted its livestream page, at least as far as we can find, though we will note that CNN's stream is a part of Max, so if you have that, you can watch through the Max app/website. Also, C-SPAN is definitely simulcasting the debate, and they most certainly have posted their streaming page. It's here.

And there you have the weekend's storylines.

Also over the weekend, we asked the readership if they would prefer we liveblog the debate, as opposed to doing a write-up after. The response was substantial and it was a massive landslide—we're talking 98% here. And what that 98% said was "stick with the write-up." Many readers explained their (very solid) reasoning. For example, reader A.H. in Newberg, OR:

My $6.45

There is enough live commentary out there on every other website and cable channel as well as the blogosphere. Electoral-Vote.com does analysis and write up exceedingly well (IMHO), stick with what you do best.

Side note: $6.45 will buy you a Venti Hazelnut Latte with non-fat milk and whipped cream on top at Starbucks, but that is for GAWD. I will stick with Electoral-Vote.com and a classic Oregon Kraft IPA.

If anyone tells you inflation is no big deal, just point out to them that "my two cents" is now "my $6.45." That's an increase of 32,250%! Anyhow, we chose A.H.'s response as an example because it was short and pithy. Other respondents pointed out that liveblogging is only useful for people who are going to watch the debate in real time, or that it doesn't allow for broader conclusions to be drawn, or that it's hard to pay attention to a debate AND a liveblog at the same time.

With that said, there is at least one reader who said it might be nice to have an online chat with other readers. If that is of interest to you, here are the details provided by that reader, B.J. in Arlington, MA:

I suggest that the interested readership of this site have a live chat during the debate. I've created a chat room on Slack for this purpose. Anyone can join via this invite link: https://join.slack.com/t/electoralvote/shared_invite/zt-2l6nlrjd3-kIg6wVCXMn75AP~eByMTEQ

When you sign up, set your "display name" to your initials and location, like on the Electoral-Vote.com weekend posts, so we can recognize each other and also to preserve everyone's privacy. For example, I've set mine to "B.J. in Arlington, MA."

After accepting the invitation to join the chat room, join the #debate-june2024 channel. The direct link to that channel is https://electoralvote.slack.com/archives/C079ASY9EBU. I'll be in the room on Thursday, as soon as I get my kids to bed (which may or may not be by 9:00 p.m. ET).

We hope that some readers find that option appealing.

Also, there were several requests to do something along the lines of "debate bingo" again. That's possible, but we could use assistance in two ways. First, if you have ideas for what the bingo items should be, please send individual suggestions or lists to comments@electoral-vote.com, ideally with subject line "Bingo Squares." Note that the suggestions should be things that are reasonably likely to come up, and that are basically indisputable when they do happen. For example, "Biden cabinet member mentioned by name" or "Someone says 'MAGA.'" Also, note that we would need these suggestions by Tuesday at 11:59 p.m. PDT in order to pull things together in time.

The second thing we could use help with is if a few readers were willing to watch the debate for when the squares are actually checked off. If you're up for that duty, let us know at comments@electoral-vote.com, ideally with the subject line "scorekeeping."

More debate news tomorrow, undoubtedly. (Z)

Odds of Peace in Israel Anytime Soon Are Getting Longer by the Day

We wrote last week that if Joe Biden is going to win reelection, it is exceedingly likely he will have to do it despite the situation in Gaza, because a resolution there anytime soon is becoming a remote possibility. There were even more developments on that front over the weekend.

First up, fresh on the heels of declaring publicly that the White House is withholding armaments, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu made two announcements. The first announcement is that he's backing away from the various ceasefire proposals out there, including the one backed by Biden and the U.N. Security Council. That means that both Hamas and the Israeli government are officially "out" when it comes to the Biden proposal, as currently constituted. The second announcement is that the Israeli army will soon wind down the most "intense" phase of the war with Hamas, so that Israel can focus on its border with Lebanon.

What explains these two shifts in posture? We are not expert enough to say with any certainty. But what we can do is share some theories, one or more of which may be the answer:

• Hezbollah: It is not much of a secret that Hezbollah, which is Lebanon's radical Islamic faction, is prepping to get violent. This weekend, thousands of militants who are not Lebanese, but who are backed by Iran, made clear they are willing and eager to join in. If this is going to happen, Netanyahu does not want to be caught with his pants down, and he certainly doesn't want Hezbollah to be able to grab a bunch of hostages.
  
  
• Unwinnable: We've written a couple of times that a "win" in Gaza for the Israelis is improbable, since for every radical you kill, you inspire two more people to become radicalized. It is possible, of course, that we have no idea what we are talking about. However, that is probably not true of Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, who is a high-ranking member of, and a spokesman for, the Israeli Defense Forces. And over the weekend, he sat for an interview in which he opined that "The idea that it is possible to destroy Hamas, to make Hamas vanish—that is throwing sand in the eyes of the public." Publicly, the Netanyahu administration pushed back against this. But privately, if the PM thinks he's got a budding quagmire on his hands, then Hezbollah allows him to back out while saving face.
  
  
• Right-wing Rebellion: Over the weekend, Netanyahu was warned by hard-right ministers Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich that if he reaches any agreement with Hamas, they will pull out of the governing coalition and cause his government to collapse. This certainly is a big part of why the PM is no longer interested in any ceasefire proposals, and it might also explain his shift in focus to Lebanon.
  
  
• U.S. Politics: There are two potential factors here. First, obviously, is that Netanyahu knows that if Donald Trump wins back the White House, Trump will give Israel a blank check to do whatever it wants. Second, there are some signs that American Jewish voters are growing unhappy with Biden. Either or both of these things could be encouraging Netanyahu to take a harder line with the White House.

If you want to look for good news for Biden here, you have to squint really hard, and even then you might not find it. The best we can come up with is that if hostilities in Gaza really do wind down, then maybe there will be a dramatic reduction in the horrors there, and some angry American voters (e.g., the protesters) will become less angry.

On the other hand, if you want to look for bad news for Biden, that's easy to find. His ceasefire proposal is effectively dead, and it's hard to see what alternative might make headway. On top of that, whatever partnership he had with Netanyahu looks to be fraying, and the PM clearly has no problem poking Biden in the eye, with his speech before Congress just a month away. And finally, if this somehow goes from being one ugly war to, effectively, being two ugly wars, then... yikes. What a mess for the White House. (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