Election Crimes Have Consequences

If you're the type of person who is willing to help Donald Trump try to cheat in order to win an election, yesterday was a disheartening day for you, as three different folks of that description got smacked upside the head by the courts.

We'll begin with America's Former Mayor, since he was the most famous of the three people who got bad news. He may once have been a man of integrity (reviews are mixed on that), but in his golden years, he's turned into a real sleazeball. His behavior has gotten him into legal hot water on many, many fronts. Among the matters that have been resolved, the massive $148 million judgment won by Georgia poll workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss really stands out because that is a lot of money, and because it hits the money-obsessed Giuliani where it really hurts.

Consistent with his present-day sleaziness, Giuliani has very clearly been dragging his feet when it comes to selling assets so that he might satisfy at least part of the judgment. Already, the former mayor's bankruptcy protection had been removed because of his intransigence. And yesterday, U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman ruled that his patience has been exhausted, and that Giuliani must now transfer a long list of assets without selling them. So, Freeman and Moss are now the proud new owners of Giuliani's Upper East Side apartment, his Mercedes, a dozen luxury watches, some cash, and $2 million in IOUs from the Trump '20 campaign. Freeman and Moss will never see that $2 million, we dare say, but they'll still realize well into the seven figures with the other assets.

One cannot help but notice that Giuliani, who was once in very close orbit to Donald Trump, has been invisible during this cycle. The former mayor also appears to be broke. And from this follows our usual observation that Giuliani is a prime candidate to throw Trump and others under the bus once the various court cases (Georgia, Arizona, etc.) get before a judge. We assume that Giuliani still wants to see Trump reelected, and so will keep his lips zipped until November. But sometime after that, we would guess the former mayor sings like a canary.

Another hopelessly hamfisted Trumper is Couy Griffin, the New Mexico commissioner who was convicted for crimes related to his actions on 1/6, and then was removed from his elective office under the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. Griffin appealed his convictions, based on the argument that he did not know he was trespassing because the line between "you CAN be here" and "you CAN'T be here" was not clear. Yesterday, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia rejected his argument.

Griffin says he will appeal, of course. He could ask for an en banc hearing (all the judges of the DC Circuit) or he could go to the Supreme Court. Who knows if either or both would be open to granting cert. In any case, as it currently stands, one of the primary lines of defense for 1/6 participants has been shut down. Meanwhile, the authority of the United States Secret Service and other protective forces has been expanded. Now, the security perimeter around a person or building is whatever the pros think it is, and not "where the ropes are" or "where the fences are."

And as long as we are on the subject of Griffin, let's indulge in a little idle speculation. Remember, Griffin was not denied the opportunity to run for office based on the Fourteenth Amendment, he was removed after already having been elected. In the relatively small number of cases where someone was disqualified on this basis, it was mostly post hoc (i.e., after they had been elected). In the Colorado case earlier this year, the Supreme Court said that Trump had to stay on the ballot there, and could not be booted from the primary on the basis of having fomented insurrection.

However, the Court's ruling did not bring complete clarity to the question. In particular, the opinions of all four women justices raised the possibility that the Fourteenth Amendment could still be activated, under the right circumstances. If Donald Trump wins the election—or, more precisely, appears to have won the electoral vote—we wonder if someone (or many someones) will file suit, and re-raise the question of whether he is disqualified from holding federal office. Again, the question has not been conclusively answered. Further, we would imagine that ANY citizen in a state who gave its EVs to Trump would have standing to sue. So, at least in theory, he would not be protected by the fact that, say, Texas' AG Ken Paxton (R) and Governor Greg Abbott (R) are in the bag for him. We are not experts here, of course, but it seems plausible that this is something that some Democratic operatives/lawyers might be keeping in their back pockets right now.

And finally, Cochise County Supervisor Peggy Judd was one of the Arizona officials who dragged their feet when it came to certifying Arizona's election results. Yesterday, she admitted she broke the law, and copped a guilty plea. Her punishment seems like a bit of a slap on the wrist to us: unsupervised probation for 90 days and a $500 fine (on top of nearly $20,000 in costs that Judd was previously required to reimburse). Still, a punishment is a punishment, and Judd's now got a criminal record.

The lesson here could not be more plain: Try to screw around with the election, and you will pay a price (while your Dear Leader, Donald Trump, will not lift a finger to help you). We recognize that some Trumpers are True Believers, and care not a whit about consequences. However, surely some would-be troublemakers must be taking note of the fates of Giuliani, Griffin, Judd, et al., and noticing that they all had to pay a price while not actually accomplishing anything electorally. Maybe that will make some stop-the-stealers think twice before sticking their necks out. (Z)

Republicans Continue to Come up Short in Anti-Democratic Lawsuits

Yesterday, the courts did not concern themselves only with folks guilty of 2020 election shenanigans. There were also two cases in which budding 2024 shenanigans were shut down.

To start, the stunts that the Georgia Elections Board tried to pull are in abeyance, for now, and will remain so well beyond the election. As readers will recall, the Board had implemented two measures intended to cause chaos and to lay the groundwork for "stop the steal" claims: (1) a requirement that all ballots in Georgia be hand-counted (not the votes, just the ballots) and (2) a new power for election officials to conduct investigations into the results before certifying them.

When various voting-rights advocates sued, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney got the case. He may be a Republican appointee, but he had no patience for any of this foolishness, and ruled that the Georgia Elections Board could not do what it was trying to do. The RNC appealed to the Georgia State Supreme Court, which has not just one, but eight, Republican appointees (and one judge who won a nonpartisan election back in 2018). Yesterday, the Georgia Supremes issued a unanimous order denying an expedited appeal of McBurney's ruling.

This means that if the new rules are going to be implemented, it's not going to happen until the 2026 election cycle, at the earliest. If you believe in reading the tea leaves, which is always a tricky proposition with judges and their preliminary questions/rulings, courts do tend to prioritize pressing matters. The fact that they did not prioritize this (unanimously, no less) somewhat suggests that they expect to maintain the status quo when they finally hear the case, meaning there is no rush.

Meanwhile, over in Michigan, the RNC had filed a lawsuit accusing state officials of mismanaging the voter rolls. Specifically—and you really don't need us to tell you what the scheme was—the Party wants Michigan to be much more aggressive about removing voters. We do not know if the lawyers that the RNC is hiring just aren't very good, or if the lawyers are forced to grasp at straws, because straws are all they have got.

In any case, the central contention of the RNC's case is that there are 50 Michigan counties with more registered voters than voting-age adults. This is a ridiculous assertion, though it is EXACTLY the kind of claim you see if you lurk on Fox's website or any other right-leaning message/comment boards. U.S. District Judge Jane Beckering was having none of it, and issued a 30-page ruling scorching the plaintiffs. The ruling raises three main points: (1) the method that the RNC used to compile its numbers is nonsensical, (2) therefore, the argument the RNC is making does not hold water, and (3) even if the argument DID hold water, the RNC does not have standing to file the suit.

It is nominally possible that the RNC could try to appeal Beckering's ruling, but their odds of success are long. First, as with the Georgia Supreme Court, it is doubtful that the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is eager to rearrange its schedule to entertain a bunch of conspiracy-based legal theories. And even if the Sixth Circuit IS open to that, any court is going to be VERY leery of making big changes to the voter rolls (or to anything else election-related) this late in the process. Also, don't forget that Beckering absolutely dismantled the RNC's case, so there's every chance that if and when the Sixth Circuit did take a look at the case, they would say, "Yeah, Judge Beckering's ruling looks about right to us."

That leads us to the exact conclusion that we had for yesterday's item when it comes to Republican legal shenanigans: The courts just aren't interested in playing along. And even if the RNC or the Trump campaign or any other entity can find one or two judges willing to tote their water (a Neomi Rao, a Trevor McFadden, an Aileen Cannon), it's not easy to draw Republican stooges three or four times in a row. (Z)

Building a Firewall

The courts are an important line of defense when it comes to election integrity (and we mean that term in its actual sense, not the sense it is used by stop-the-steal Trumpers like Mike Lindell). However, they are not the only line of defense. So, let's talk about some of the steps that others are taking, in anticipation of potential shadiness in a couple of weeks.

To start, if it is indeed a close election, then there is every chance of another "red mirage," wherein a state appears to be in the Trump column, but moves to the Harris column once the absentee totals start to come in. There was a time when reporters had to concern themselves only with forecasting and reporting. Now, they also have to be educators. And so, virtually every major news outlet has taken steps so they are in a position to communicate clearly to voters what is going on, and why they are making the calls they are making. To wit:

• The Associated Press has hired a bunch of reporters who will be responsible for writing pieces explaining the AP's decisions, in great detail.
  
  
• NBC News has hired correspondents they call "county captains" to embed in key counties, and report on vote counting there.
  
  
• The New York Times did not adopt a fancy name, but is doing the same basic thing as NBC News is.
  
  
• CBS News has put together a 20-person fact-checking unit that will address falsehoods in real time on Election Night.
  
  
• Fox, where the number crunchers are pretty much the only journalists left, has worked to develop new mathematical tools to interpret absentee/mail-in results, so they can explain to viewers what to expect as totals come in.

Mind you, we will still be very leery of Fox's reporting on election night. Arnon Mishkin, who oversees Fox's data/projections operation is very good. But they probably did err in calling Arizona as early as they did in 2020. Further, there is now enormous pressure being brought to bear from the propaganda side of the operation, which is roughly 95% of the staff.

Election officials are also gearing up for potential trouble. NBC News has been talking to the folks responsible for overseeing voting in various swing states, and yesterday reported on some of the measures being implemented. It's a mix of "heartening" and "really sad it's come to this."

For example, in Maricopa County, AZ, the tabulation center has been converted into something of an armed fortress. There are now two layers of security fencing, and the building will be protected on Election Day by drones flying overhead and by snipers on the roof. Many of the people who will work on tabulation will park off site, and will be transported by armored buses. Anyone who enters the building will have to pass through a metal detector and will be recorded by security cameras at all times.

Or how about Cobb County, GA? There, the local sheriff's department will station officers at all polling places. There will also be an emergency call center, with 148 cameras and closed-circuit TVs set up to monitor polling places and key traffic corridors, and fire/medical/police personnel available for rapid deployment, as needed. The Georgians toyed with installing panic buttons, very much like those used by banks to alert authorities about bank robbers. That proved dodgy, so election workers will be given police radios instead.

Maricopa and Cobb are just two of the more notable examples, but similar efforts are underway in places like Detroit, MI; Milwaukee, WI; Denver, CO; and other purple/blue-purple states. Further, those responsible for security don't necessarily want to show all their cards, so there are undoubtedly measures being taken that are not being shared with reporters.

And on that point (keeping things on the down-low), Kamala Harris sat down for yet another big interview yesterday, this one with NBC News. And one of the questions that came up was whether Team Harris was prepared if Donald Trump tries to declare victory prematurely, or to steal victory through chicanery. Harris responded "Of course," and said her team has "the resources and the expertise and the focus on that." She would not give specifics, which makes sense, since the Harris campaign doesn't want to show its playbook to the Trump campaign, and to give the Trump campaign time to figure out workarounds. But we have no doubt that Harris '24 is locked and loaded, should it be necessary.

The upshot here is this: Many people have observed that Trump and his acolytes have had 4 more years to plan and plot and scheme, and so can be expected to put up a better effort than their amateurish attempt to steal the election in 2020. This may be so, but those who would prevent Trump from stealing the election in 2024 have also had 4 more years to plan. And, in general, "people who do not work for Donald Trump" tend to be considerably more competent than "people who work for Donald Trump." Add in the courts (see above), and there is much in place to protect democracy in 2024, and an excellent chance that the line will hold. We've written it before, and we'll write it again: If the Republicans are going to steal this election, it is vastly more likely to happen with pre-election shenanigans than post-election shenanigans. Not that the pre-election shenanigans are going terribly well these days (see above and below). (Z)

Today's Ratfu**ing News

We had an item Monday discussing how, as far as political operatives go, Elon Musk is pretty good at... building electric cars. The Musk-funded GOTV operations, underway in several swing states, are something of a fiasco.

Further, Musk appears to be having poor results with his efforts to, in effect, buy votes. Last week, he announced that people who signed his petition promising that they: (1) support the First Amendment, (2) support the Second Amendment, and (3) have registered to vote, would be eligible for a $1 million prize. In an effort to make the scheme "legal," Musk eventually altered it, such that the $1 million is no longer a "prize," it's "salary" for serving as a spokesperson for his PAC. In any case, he's given out two $1 million prizes so far, and both went to... hardcore Trumpers who had already cast their ballots. The general supposition is that Musk is not attracting many new voters to the Trump banner, and that the participants in his de facto lottery are almost entirely people who were already on board the S.S. Tiny (Handed) Dancer.

That said, Musk is not above playing dirty pool, and he has more than one trick up his sleeve. OpenSecrets just issued a report on one of his other "initiatives." He is substantially (or entirely) funding the Building America's Future PAC. And one of the Building America's Future PAC's main activities is creating websites and sending out text messages that appear to be part of Kamala Harris' campaign, but aren't.

The main fake site is Progress2028.com, which is meant to appear like a Harris-campaign-run response to Project 2025. It makes her look a few ticks more liberal than she actually is, particularly on issues that get conservatives' blood boiling. Meanwhile, the phony text messages read like this:

Kamala Harris believes LGBTQIA youth deserve access to gender-affirming care and safe, inclusive schools in Grand Rapids. Kamala will ensure minors can access the care they need without fear of parental intervention or discrimination. Help make our schools as trans-friendly as possible.

That's not exactly a misrepresentation of her position, but it puts it in the most assertive form possible. And obviously, Harris herself is not looking to highlight her stances on the election's most divisive issues.

What Musk is doing is probably not illegal. The texts do not claim to come from Harris or her campaign, they come from (the phony) Progress 2028, and are designed to encourage you to conclude on your own that they are from her. Will it work? Maybe, though we doubt many people read political text messages right now, since there are so many of them. Plus, Musk isn't doing so well with his other political maneuvering, so this could go nowhere like all the other stuff. (Z)

PollWatch 2024, Part IV: The Senate Gap

One of the things that stands out about this year's polling is the rather sizable gap between the numbers of the Democratic candidates for president (Joe Biden and Kamala Harris) and the numbers of the Democratic candidates for Senate. We thought we'd take a look at that, and see if things are out of line with the elections of the recent past.

First, here are the numbers as they currently stand. We're going to look at states that are: (1) among the 10 most competitive states in the presidential race, and (2) have a Senate race this year. States that fulfill only one of those two requirements tend to have wonky numbers that aren't very instructive. We are going to use FiveThirtyEight's polling averages, as that site tends to be pretty evenhanded in the polls they include (as compared, in particular, to Real Clear Politics). The difference column reflects how the presidential candidate is doing relative to the Senate candidate. In other words, "-3%" means the presidential candidate is running three points behind the Senate candidate.

	Republicans					Democrats
State	President	Pct.	Senator	Pct.	Difference	President	Pct.	Senator	Pct.	Difference	Pres. Gap
Arizona	Donald Trump	48.6%	Kari Lake	43.4%	+5.2%	Kamala Harris	46.7%	Ruben Gallego	50.3%	-3.6%	8.8%
Michigan	Donald Trump	47.2%	Mike Rogers	43.9%	+3.3%	Kamala Harris	47.4%	Elissa Slotkin	47.8%	-0.4%	3.7%
Minnesota	Donald Trump	44.3%	Royce White	37.4%	+6.9%	Kamala Harris	49.8%	Amy Klobuchar	48.5%	+1.3%	5.6%
Nevada	Donald Trump	47.2%	Sam Brown	41.2%	+6.0%	Kamala Harris	47.3%	Jacky Rosen	49.3%	-2.0%	8.0%
Pennsylvania	Donald Trump	47.8%	David McCormick	44.2%	+3.6%	Kamala Harris	47.5%	Bob Casey	48.3%	-0.8%	4.4%
Texas	Donald Trump	50.9%	Ted Cruz	48.8%	+2.1%	Kamala Harris	44.1%	Colin Allred	45.0%	-0.9%	3.0%
Wisconsin	Donald Trump	47.4%	Eric Hovde	46.0%	+1.4%	Kamala Harris	47.8%	Tammy Baldwin	49.8%	-2%	3.4%

That's seven states, then, that are among the 10 most competitive states in the presidential election AND that have a Senate race this year. Georgia, North Carolina, and Iowa are the three that don't make the list, by virtue of having no Senate seat up for election.

The presidential gap (last column) is the sum of the gap between Trump and his party's senator and Harris and her party's senator. In all cases, as you can see, Trump is running ahead of the GOP candidate and in all cases but one, Harris is running behind the Democratic candidate. If something's wacky, then the presidential gap would theoretically be bigger in this year's election than in past elections. We are writing this before compiling the numbers, however, so whether or not there's something odd going on in 2024 will be almost as much a surprise to us as it will be to readers.

Here are the actual results for states that met the above criteria in 2020:

	Republicans					Democrats
State	President	Pct.	Senator	Pct.	Difference	President	Pct.	Senator	Pct.	Difference	Pres. Gap
Arizona	Donald Trump	49.1%	Martha McSally	48.8%	+0.3%	Joe Biden	49.4%	Mark Kelly	51.2%	-1.8%	2.1%
Georgia	Donald Trump	49.2%	David Perdue	49.4%	-0.2%	Joe Biden	49.5%	Jon Ossoff	50.6%	-1.1%	0.9%
Georgia	Donald Trump	49.2%	Kelly Loeffler	49.0%	+0.2%	Joe Biden	49.5%	Raphael Warnock	51.0%	-1.5%	1.7%
Michigan	Donald Trump	47.8%	John James	48.2%	-0.4%	Joe Biden	50.6%	Gary Peters	49.9%	+0.7%	1.1%
Minnesota	Donald Trump	45.3%	Jason Lewis	43.5%	+1.8%	Joe Biden	52.4%	Tina Smith	48.7%	+3.7%	1.9%
North Carolina	Donald Trump	49.9%	Thom Tillis	48.7%	+1.2%	Joe Biden	48.6%	Cal Cunningham	46.9%	+1.7%	0.5%
Texas	Donald Trump	52.1%	John Cornyn	53.5%	-1.4%	Joe Biden	46.5%	MJ Hegar	43.9%	+2.6%	4.0%

Once again, we have seven entries, because while four of the ten-most-close presidential states did not have a Senate election (Florida, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) there were two Senate seats up in Georgia.

Now, the 2016 numbers:

	Republicans					Democrats
State	President	Pct.	Senator	Pct.	Difference	President	Pct.	Senator	Pct.	Difference	Pres. Gap
Arizona	Donald Trump	48.1%	John McCain	53.7%	-5.6%	Hillary Clinton	44.6%	Ann Kirkpatrick	40.8%	+3.8%	9.4%
Florida	Donald Trump	49.0%	Marco Rubio	52.0%	-3.0%	Hillary Clinton	47.8%	Patrick Murphy	44.3%	+3.5%	6.5%
Nevada	Donald Trump	45.5%	Joe Heck	44.7%	+0.8%	Hillary Clinton	47.9%	Catherine Cortez Masto	47.1%	+0.8%	0.0%
New Hampshire	Donald Trump	47.3%	Kelly Ayotte	47.8%	-0.5%	Hillary Clinton	47.6%	Maggie Hassan	48.0%	-0.4%	0.1%
North Carolina	Donald Trump	49.8%	Richard Burr	51.1%	-1.3%	Hillary Clinton	46.1%	Deborah K. Ross	45.4%	+0.7%	2.0%
Pennsylvania	Donald Trump	48.2%	Pat Toomey	48.8%	-0.6%	Hillary Clinton	47.7%	Katie McGinty	47.3%	+0.4%	1.0%
Wisconsin	Donald Trump	47.2%	Ron Johnson	50.2%	-3.0%	Hillary Clinton	46.5%	Russ Feingold	46.8%	-0.3%	2.7%

Once again, seven entries. That will happen when states have (at least) two U.S. Senate elections per every three election cycles. This time, the close-for-president states that are omitted are Maine, Michigan and Minnesota.

We recognize that this is a pretty basic analysis, but several things do stand out:

• In the past, Donald Trump ran behind the GOP Senate candidate 60% of the time, and ahead of them 40% of the time. This year, as noted, he's ahead of all seven Republican candidates. And 100% is rather more than 40%.
  
  
• Not coincidentally, if the current numbers were to hold, seven of the eight largest gaps between Trump and his U.S. Senate "partner" would be this year. The only non-2024 election that would make the top eight is the 2020 Minnesota contest where Trump ran ahead of Jason Lewis by 1.8%.
  
  
• Kamala Harris' numbers are mostly at the bottom of the list. She is more likely to grow her total than he is, it would seem.
  
  
• If the current numbers were to hold, Kamala Harris would only run ahead of one Democratic Senate candidate (Amy Klobuchar in Minnesota). That's unusual; her two immediate predecessors ran ahead of their Senate "partner" about 60% of the time.
  
  
• The tables show 10 elections where the results of the two presidential candidates diverged (or would diverge) by 3.0% or more, and seven of them are this year's elections. If that held, then 2024 would be the ticket-splittingest election in recent memory.

So yes, the Senate gap this year is larger than it has been in either of Donald Trump's other elections. There are numerous possible explanations for this, among them that it's a small sample size that could be affected by one or two unusual elections (John McCain on the ticket, Kari Lake on the ticket), that Kamala Harris is weaker than Hillary Clinton/Joe Biden, or that Donald Trump 2024 is stronger than Donald Trump 2020 or Donald Trump 2016. But one very plausible explanation is that the pollsters are underrating Harris by a couple of points. If so, that small difference would be very big, indeed. (Z)

Today's Presidential Polls

So, 10% of Georgians are still undecided. Really? (Z)

State	Kamala Harris	Donald Trump	Start	End	Pollster
Georgia	43%	47%	Oct 06	Oct 15	U. of Georgia
North Carolina	47%	46%	Oct 17	Oct 20	SurveyUSA
Nevada	47%	49%	Oct 08	Oct 15	Fabrizio + Anzalone
New York	58%	39%	Oct 13	Oct 17	Siena Coll.

Click on a state name for a graph of its polling history.

Today's Senate Polls

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was delighted when the red team was able to recruit Sam Brown. It would seem Brown wasn't as strong a candidate as it seemed. (Z)

State	Democrat	D %	Republican	R %	Start	End	Pollster
New Mexico	Martin Heinrich*	51%	Nella Domenici	40%	Oct 10	Oct 18	Research and Polling
Nevada	Jacky Rosen*	49%	Sam Brown	44%	Oct 08	Oct 15	Fabrizio + Anzalone
New York	Kirsten Gillibrand*	57%	Mike Sapraicone	31%	Oct 13	Oct 17	Siena Coll.

* Denotes incumbent

---

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