Legal News, Part I: A Legal System Under Suspicion?

The reports of the death of the U.S. legal system have been greatly exaggerated.

Last week, (V) wrote: "the legal system simply doesn't work anymore." This was written in the context of the Michigan fake electors case where a judge dismissed eight felony charges brought against 15 fake electors. This response, shared by many readers, is certainly understandable. But while the U.S. legal system is indeed under severe strain, this case is actually an example of the legal system working, even if the outcome is not one that most people wanted or agree with.

It's important to understand the context here: The court dismissed the charges after lengthy preliminary hearings—a process in criminal cases to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to go to a jury trial. Unlike a grand jury proceeding, defense counsel can introduce evidence and cross-examine the prosecution's witnesses. It is one of those safeguards that prevent criminal cases which aren't supported by probable cause from proceeding.

The defendants were charged under Michigan criminal law, which requires an "intent to defraud" or an "intent to injure or defraud." Proving "intent" is difficult and requires evidence that the defendant knowingly set out to defraud or injure in a specific way. In finding insufficient evidence of that intent element, the Court noted a few things that undercut the prosecution's case: (1) the defendants were not the ringleaders—one woman said she'd only been called the night before they met; (2) they posed for photos and went public with their actions, which is inconsistent with ill intent; (3) they testified that they thought they were "alternate" electors in case election litigation was successful; (4) the certificate did not purport to be official—no Michigan seal, no forged governor's signature; and (5) they testified that their goal was not to defraud, but to bring attention to the matter—i.e., to "redress" a wrong. There was evidence that contradicted that testimony, but the judge has to determine how much weight to give competing evidence and decide whether the prosecution has met its burden.

Also, at a preliminary hearing, the prosecution doesn't have to present all of its evidence, just enough to satisfy the probable cause standard to get to a trial. AGs often make a strategic calculation about how much of their case to let the defense see, so it could be that the prosecutor withheld too much—maybe they have evidence of intent that they didn't present. We just don't know. AG Dana Nessel has vowed to appeal, but the bar is pretty high for decisions where the judge is weighing evidence and determining its sufficiency—appeals courts generally don't second-guess those credibility/reliability determinations or substitute their judgment for the judge who actually heard the evidence firsthand. This judge may have gotten it wrong, and a different judge may have allowed the case to proceed, but that's the system working as it should, even if some wish the outcome were different. Also of interest is that the judge was appointed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D-MI), so this decision does not appear to have been driven by politics.

If you want to talk about the challenges to our legal system, there are plenty of better examples to point to, especially at the federal level. We are experiencing an unprecedented attack on the rule of law by Donald Trump and his loyalists, including undermining the independence of our Department of Justice, the misuse of federal prosecutors, the firing of career personnel and replacing them with incompetent lackeys, redirecting critical counter-terrorism and national security resources to immigration tasks and abuse of power by the president in calling for the prosecution of people he dislikes and the shuttering of investigations of those he likes (looking at you Tom 50-grand-Cava-bagman Homan).

Now we have a particularly egregious example of this abuse of power in Trump demanding the prosecution of people he holds grudges against, even though they haven't broken any laws. Currently in his cross-hairs is former FBI director James Comey. Trump fired Comey in his first term after Comey wouldn't commit to dropping an investigation into Trump ally Mike Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, served time, and was later pardoned by Trump.

It is worth remembering that Comey is a Republican, one who arguably tipped the 2016 election to Trump when he inexplicably announced the week before the election (in violation of Department of Justice policy) that he was reopening the investigation into Hillary Clinton's e-mail server. He later said, "nothing to see here"—but only after Trump was elected. Still, Trump hates him anyway because he has a modicum of integrity and wouldn't take marching orders from the Oval Office. So, Trump tasked his U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, Eric Siebert, to find crimes with which to charge Comey, along with other thorns in Trump's side, New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) and Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA). When Siebert balked, he was pressured into resigning. Now Trump has installed his former personal lawyer (of which there is seemingly an endless supply), Lindsey Halligan, who has no prosecutorial experience, into the role to bring those charges, whether or not any laws have been broken.

And yesterday afternoon Halligan did as she was told. Comey has been charged with obstruction of justice and making false statements and, apparently, was able to secure an indictment from a federal grand jury (though the grand jury did reject one of the charges brought, approving two). The claim seems to be related to Comey's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2020, in which he addressed leaks to the press about investigations into links between the Trump campaign and Russia. There's a 5-year statute of limitations, which was set to expire in 4 days. As Ben Wittes at Lawfare explains, if that is the basis of the charges, they seem to be based on different recollections of events between Andrew McCabe and Comey about who may have been responsible for the leaks. Speaking of an intent element, that is a very thin reed on which to hang a claim of intent to deliberately mislead the committee, which is a required element to get a conviction.

We can add to that Trump's very public statements demanding that Comey be charged, which is evidence that this prosecution is politically motivated. Comey can file a motion to dismiss and once that's granted (we wish Vegas was taking bets on the over/under as to how quickly that will happen), he has an excellent case for vindictive and selective prosecution. And while Trump won't be held accountable, the lawyers who brought this case can be. They can be fined and disbarred for bringing not only a frivolous case, but one they knew was motivated by malice, not the law or the facts. That will also be true of any charges they try to bring against Letitia James or Schiff. The president cannot choose a target and then instruct government lawyers to manufacture a crime to charge them with. Instead, facts that seem to point to a crime lead to an investigation, which may lead to a person of interest, which may lead to that person being charged with a crime that the facts and the law support. If the U.S. president takes a personal interest in someone's prosecution, that taints the entire case with the stink of an improper motivation.

Unfortunately, the media still struggles with how to report on Trump's behavior. Instead of sounding the alarm that Trump has crossed the line into the persecution of perceived enemies regardless of any wrongdoing, they're still in a "we report, you decide" landscape, as if there are two sides to whether it's OK for the president to order the Attorney General to jail a political rival. Pro Tip: IT'S NOT OK! Consider this headline from CNN: "DOJ nearing decision whether to charge former FBI Director James Comey with lying to Congress, sources say." This headline is irresponsible and misleading. Try this: "Despite memo advising against charges, DOJ capitulates to Trump's demand to charge Comey without basis." This is a five-alarm fire, but media coverage is inconsistent at best and misleading at worst.

We started this item with the observation that "the death of the legal system has been exaggerated." And it's true, even if it's struggling mightily against those whose only goal is to destroy it and who are in a position to do so. There are guardrails that are still in place to protect people from political prosecutions and uphold the rule of law: (1) grand juries refusing to indict for trumped up charges (see sandwich throwing and protesters' other alleged assaults); (2) courts issuing restraining orders to stop unlawful orders; and (3)—and this is a big one—for all the Trump kvetching about the courts, the administration is largely following court orders. One example is the birthright citizenship cases—a nationwide injunction remains in place in two cases following the Supreme Court's action telling a lower court that it could implement a nationwide injunction if it was necessary to give "complete relief" to the states. The judge did just that, and there was no effort to get that stayed on the shadow docket. There are other examples like that. Steve Vladeck, in an excellent writeup, opines that the public narrative is largely wrong and the lower court decisions have often been effective in reining in this administration.

The Department of Justice is definitely under attack and its decimation is making us all less safe. The podcast UnJustified details what is happening at the Justice Department and how that impacts us, if you want more insight into that story. It's hosted by Andrew McCabe, former deputy FBI director (and famously fired by Trump in his first term), and Allison Gill, former VA official and founder of Mueller She Wrote and MSW media. But even they, for all their concern, also sound a hopeful note that there remain plenty of ways to push back and keep those important guardrails in place.

Finally, most of the state judges, including those on the state Supreme Courts, are largely holding the line when it comes to the rule of law, regardless of the party of the governor who appointed them. For example, the Utah Supreme Court recently struck down the Republican gerrymander as a violation of a citizen-passed initiative prohibiting the practice. There are exceptions, of course, the most egregious being Ken Paxton, the attorney general in Texas who has effectively criminalized pregnancy and abused his office so extensively that Pam Bondi can barely keep up with him when it comes to corruption. But thankfully, that is the exception. Moreover, there are thousands of state and federal judges who are working hard, under the most difficult conditions, to honor their oaths, give each party a fair shot in court, and reach a result that is supported by the law and the evidence. (L) has a friend who is a law clerk for a district court, and she is one of the smartest people (L) knows and is an excellent and dedicated public servant. She is, in her words, "at my breaking point." She doesn't know if she'll have a job at the end of the month, as the legal work from DOJ attorneys is increasingly shoddy, and it just keeps piling up. These folks need our support, if for no other reason than we need them. So, show them some love and if you know someone who works for the court system, tell them "thanks!"

We all have an obligation to avoid oversimplified generalizations that only serve to demoralize and further erode people's confidence in the legal system, and to find and emphasize where the system is holding, while also holding those to account who would dismantle the rule of law in this country. We know who those people are—everyone else is doing their best. Don't mistake an error for an intent to destroy, or give that error more significance than it warrants. (L)

Legal News, Part II: The Power of One Person... to Screw Things Up

Following from the previous item, it's clear that the crisis in which the American justice system is enmeshed is primarily due to a fairly small number of people within the vast law and order infrastructure. Obviously, some number of the nine people currently sitting on the Supreme Court are doing enormous harm. How many of those nine is a fair question. Is it all of them, since they are the institution, and they all bear responsibility for what it does? Is it the six right-wingers, who seem, some days, to have become full-time employees of the Trump Organization? Is it just Chief Justice John Roberts, who is supposed to be a sheepherder, but who has lost control of the sheep? Is it maybe Roberts and the two or three right-wingers who seem to always place personal ideology above the law? We just aren't sure.

Outside of the Supreme Court, the harms being done to the American system of justice are the responsibility of two people, in particular. We speak, of course, of AG Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel. Yes, they are both MAGA, which is part of the problem. But the bigger problem is that they are both constantly in danger of being fired, and they both know it. Donald Trump takes no particular interest in what, say, the Department of the Interior does. Heck, he may not even know what the Department of the Interior does. But he's VERY interested in what happens with the justice system, since he wants to use the justice system to punish his enemies (and, at the same time, he needs to protect his many, many shady allies). That means that Patel and Bondi are both constantly putting on a show, primarily for an audience of one.

And that brings us to the ICE shooting in Dallas. Most readers have likely heard about it by now. A single shooter opened fire on an ICE facility, killing one detainee before turning the gun on himself. Those are about the only facts we feel confident are actually facts.

The problem when it comes to any facts beyond that, is that Trump (and thus Patel) are eager, in roughly equal measure, to: (1) blame Democrats for the incident, and (2) exonerate Republicans for any responsibility. And so, Patel and his underlings have already shared numerous pieces of "evidence," including a bullet casing with ANTI-ICE written on it, and a note with violent, anti-ICE messages.

At the same time, Patel announced that the attack had an "idealogical [sic] motive" and was "politically motivated." Trump was even less subtle, and got on his low-rated social media platform to share his assessment:

I have been briefed on the deadly shooting at the ICE Field Office in Dallas, Texas. It has now been revealed the deranged shooter wrote "Anti-ICE" on his shell casings. This is despicable! The Brave Men and Women of ICE are just trying to do their jobs, and remove the "WORST of the WORST" Criminals out of our Country, but they are facing an unprecedented increase in threats, violence, and attacks by Deranged Radical Leftists. This violence is the result of the Radical Left Democrats constantly demonizing Law Enforcement, calling for ICE to be demolished, and comparing ICE Officers to "Nazis." The continuing violence from Radical Left Terrorists, in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's assassination, must be stopped. ICE Officers, and other Brave Members of Law Enforcement, are under grave threat. We have already declared ANTIFA a Terrorist Organization, and I will be signing an Executive Order this week to dismantle these Domestic Terrorism Networks. I AM CALLING ON ALL DEMOCRATS TO STOP THIS RHETORIC AGAINST ICE AND AMERICA'S LAW ENFORCEMENT, RIGHT NOW! The Trump Administration is fully committed to backing Law Enforcement, Strong Borders, securing our Homeland, deporting Violent Illegal Criminals, and fully rooting out the Left Wing Domestic Terrorism that is terrorizing our Country. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

In support of Trump, the National Republican Congressional Committee helpfully put together a press release of the "evidence" that Democrats are to blame for the ICE shooting. For example, "Democrats are explicitly targeting ICE officers and arguing that 'masks and lack of uniforms have led to chaos in Los Angeles,'" and "LA Mayor Bass announced a 'cash assistance' program to immigrant families affected by ICE raids." And just in case you had any doubt this was intended to score political points, this press release was reconfigured dozens of times, changing only the title "[X]'s party is blatantly demonizing ICE," where [X] is the name of a Democratic member of Congress who is in one of the RNCC's battleground districts. So, for example, the version of the press release we link to above is headlined "Frank Mrvan's party is blatantly demonizing ICE," but there are also versions for Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Josh Riley and Tom Suozzi (both D-NY), Jared Golden (D-ME) and many others.

Under these circumstances, how can one possibly believe what comes out of the FBI? There are plenty of people on the left suggesting that the evidence that Patel has shared, like the bullet, is fake. We doubt that is the case (although we certainly aren't 100% sure about that). What we do think is that it takes a while to investigate a crime properly, and to develop a solid interpretation of what all the evidence really means. For what it's worth, the early returns suggest that the ICE shooter, like the killer of Charlie Kirk, was deeply ensconced in Internet culture, and was not overtly political, at least not in a way that can be characterized using the right-left spectrum.

"You can't trust the Trump/Patel-led FBI" may sound a little like Trump's longstanding rants about the "Deep State" but, as Mediaite's Colby Hall observes, it's really apples and oranges. The Deep State stuff was broad, and unsupported with specific evidence. Distrust of the current DoJ/FBI is rooted in now-ample evidence, including blatant rushes to judgment (e.g., "We've got the Kirk shooter! Oops, no we don't!"), withholding of evidence unfavorable to the administration (e.g., the Epstein files), disregard for the law (e.g., illegal deportations), etc.

And in the end, if the federal law enforcement apparatus cannot be trusted, nobody wins. (Z)

Military News: Is Pete Hegseth about to Commit High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

This news was all over the place yesterday, despite the fact that the heart of the story remains a mystery: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has ordered hundreds of high-ranking officers from around the globe to be in Quantico, VA, for an in-person meeting next Tuesday.

The purpose of the meeting is known to only a few people, and those people are not talking. Rumors, of course, are flying fast and furious. Maybe it will be a mass fitness test of some sort. Maybe it will be a mass firing. Maybe it will be an intelligence briefing. Maybe it will be a photo-op, so Donald Trump can have a picture with himself and hundreds of generals to put up in the White House. Anything is possible. It's not even clear exactly which people have been ordered to attend: just flag officers, or all general officers, or some combination therein.

Folks who have been at this a heck of a lot longer than Hegseth has say that there are really only two justifiable reasons to summon the brass for an in-person meeting: (1) To announce the commencement of some sort of large-scale military operation, or (2) To announce and implement some sort of vast overhaul of the military's command structure. It certainly could be one of these things, and heaven help us all if it's the former. If it is not one of these things, then whatever it is really could have been handled through secure video conferencing.

If the meeting really is overkill, and is just Hegseth/Trump using military brass to replace Viagra for a day, there are at least a couple of problems. The smaller one is that transporting that many people (along with their support staff) is not cheap. The much bigger one is that the U.S. is a bit more vulnerable when all the top commanders are at a meeting as opposed to, you know, doing their jobs. If some unfriendly was planning to do something, Tuesday morning would present a prime opportunity to do it. And even if no hostile takes advantage, the whole situation suggests a Pentagon in some level of crisis or disarray. Remember, the bad guys are always watching.

We'll see what this is all about on Tuesday. Or, given the steps taken to censor press coverage of the Pentagon, maybe we won't. (Z)

The Economy: Trump Takes Steps to Make Sure Shutdown Has a Deep Impact

We accept that sometimes politicians stash themselves away in smoke-filled rooms, hammer out an agreement, and then surprise the rest of the world. But that really does not seem to be what's going on when it comes to the government shutdown set to commence Wednesday morning at 12:01 a.m.

By all indications, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) aren't talking right now, and don't particularly see a need to talk. Thune thinks it is entirely reasonable to kick the can down the road for another 7 weeks, and that if the Democrats don't agree, voters will blame the blue team for being unreasonable. Schumer thinks that money for healthcare subsidies must be secured, and that if he doesn't fight, his base will be furious, while if the Republicans don't bend, voters will blame the red team for being heartless lackeys of the billionaire class.

Yesterday, Donald Trump declared that if there is a shutdown, Democrats would be to blame. He also announced that his administration would undertake mass firings of government employees if the government did indeed shut down. This is not the usual furloughs, this is "take your stuff and get out of here and don't come back."

Is there any way to interpret this other than: "You Democrats care about federal employees and I don't, so I am going to use that against you"? If there is, we're not seeing it. In any case, after Trump made his threat, Politico published an item headlined "Republicans' shutdown blame game is fracturing." In short, Congressional Republicans settled on a "let's be reasonable" message, and Trump blew that up with his bomb throwing. Meanwhile, The Hill published an item headlined "Cracks form among Senate Democrats as Trump threatens big shutdown layoffs." As the headline indicates, at least some Senate Democrats don't want to see a bunch of federal workers laid off.

So, the Republicans are fracturing and the Democrats are cracking. Put another way, nobody really knows which side might back down, or if either one will. And nobody really knows which side will feel the pain if there is a shutdown (complete with mass firings?). That said, Donald Trump does tend to have pretty good instincts about these things, and his words and actions suggest that he thinks he and his party are going to be in trouble if this situation goes south. Meanwhile, if the Republicans get what they want, and the can is kicked to November, then... what are they going to do then? Try to kick the can again? (Z)

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" (aka "Glory, Glory Hallelujah!")

Actually, that song is also sometimes known as "John Brown's Body," because the two songs, while sporting distinct lyrics, had the same melody, the same basic patriotic theme, and were often combined during the Civil War.

Last week, we gave the hint that "we tried to use the word 'myrrh'" in a headline, and then we added that "If you are still working on the headline theme, we will say that those who solve it probably say 'Yay!' Which actually does fit, though to make it more doable, we avoided words that qualify in that particular way."

And here is the solution, courtesy of reader B.B. in Avon, CT:

The theme is words with "Y" as the only vowel.

• The People vs. Jimmy Kimmel: When It Comes to Censorship, Sky's the Limit
• Today in Competence, Part I: Pirro Is Making It Up on the Fly
• I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Cry Baby
• This Week in Schadenfreude: This Gold Decor Brought to You By Home Depot
• This Week in Freudenfreude: Hit the Gym, Drink Your Solein

The hint mentions "myrrh", another word with "Y" as the only vowel.

You guys have rhythm! Or is it syzygy?

We almost went with "words where 'Y' is a vowel," in which case "yay" from Saturday would qualify, as the second "y" is a vowel in that one. However, we thought that made it too hard, so we limited ourselves to words where the "y" was the only vowel. "Hymn," from this headline, is another such word.

Here are the first 50 readers to get it right:

J.M. in New York City, NY T.F. in Craftsbury Common, VT C.W. in Atlantic Beach, FL T.M. in New York City, NY T.K. in Half Moon Bay, St. Kitts R.G. in Washington, DC A.O'N. in Wiesbaden, Germany J.S. in Huntington Station, NY R.E. in Birmingham, AL M.A. in Boston, MA R.R. in Westborough, MA S.S. in Lucerne, Switzerland K.S. in Chicago, IL C.S. in Maine, NY J.M. in Estes Park, CO S.K. in Atlanta, GA M.B. in Denver, CO D.L. in Springfield, IL J.F. in Charlotte, NC M.S. in Canton, NY N.C. in Columbus, MS S.K. in Ardmore, PA B.W. in Tyngsborough, MA R.M. in Summerville, SC M.Z. in Sharon, MA

A.E. in Cleveland, OH B.M. in Chico, CA P.H. in Ft. Lauderdale, FL J.L. in Sterling, MA W.S. in Louisville, KY B.B. in Avon S.G. in Durham, NC H.B. in Croydon, England, UK K.H. in Albuquerque, NM R.F.W. in Atlanta, GA G.H. in Acton, ME M.A. in West Windsor, NJ A.R. in Arlington, VA J.S. in Columbia, MO I.H. in Occupied D.C. W.M. in Istanbul, Turkey J.N. in Zionsville, IN C.W. in Hamilton, NY K.J. in Toronto, ON, Canada C.S. in Philadelphia, PA K.R. in Austin, TX D.J. in Lake Forest, IL R.D.K. in Ebensee am Traunsee, Austria D.M. in Oakland, CA B.G. in Houston, TX

The 50th correct response was received at 9:46 a.m. PT on Friday.

For this week's theme, it relies on multiple words per headline, and it's in the category Entertainment. For a hint, we'll say that if you can't figure it out, you may never be able to forgive yourself. Yep, you'll be Unforgiven. Incidentally, we included the ICE headline, because that item is less about the shooting than it is about the government's response.

If you have a guess, send it to comments@electoral-vote.com with subject line September 26 Headlines. (Z)

This Week in Schadenfreude: Jimmy Kimmel Unleashed

We are not sure how this Jimmy Kimmel situation could have gone worse for the Trump administration. Abusing the powers of the FCC made Trump & Co. simultaneously look small, authoritarian and hypocritical (the latter since MAGA constantly harped about censorship during the Biden presidency, including the now-infamous tweet from FCC Chair Brendan Carr observing that "censorship is the authoritarian's dream").

Perhaps even worse, at least in Trump's way of looking at the world, is that Kimmel has been turned into a combination of martyr, champion of free speech, and leader of the resistance. Everyone knows that the thing Trump cares most about is ratings and "records." Well, Kimmel's first monologue back after his suspension has been viewed well over 20 million times on YouTube—a record for a Kimmel monologue on that platform. His second monologue back has been viewed 6 million times, the largest total for any late-night monologue this year, excepting his monologue from the previous night. That first episode back drew at least 6.3 million viewers (and the total will likely pass 7 million once streaming is figured in). That despite the fact that the show is not available to roughly 15% of American viewers due to the Sinclair/Nexstar boycott. For comparison purposes, the average episode of The Apprentice, in its last season, drew 4.2 million viewers. And that show had 100% clearance (available to all American viewers), and was on in primetime.

So, Trump gave Kimmel vast amounts of prestige, and a vast number of viewers, that the late-night host otherwise would not have had. On top of that, Kimmel is dangerously close to un-fireable, at least for the foreseeable future, and is going to be coming after Trump with all he's got. For example, Kimmel shared Trump's "truth" in which the President said Kimmel should "rot" in his crappy ratings. The host then observed that the Donald's approval ratings are approaching historic lows, and added "Welcome to the crappy ratings club, Mr. President." Ouch.

And finally, and more broadly, the whole thing made Trump look weak. Kimmel was off the air for what, 3 (business) days? That's all Trump could squeeze out of the strong-arm routine? And if the administration tries a similar trick again, then Disney—perhaps having concluded that the emperor has no clothes—is likely to tell him to shove it. The Mouse's spine may be strengthened by having learned that a lot of their customers disagree with Trump, and will back that with their money (or, more precisely, with taking their money elsewhere). On top of that, Disney is now facing a lawsuit from shareholders over the whole fiasco. Other companies, media and otherwise, might also look at what happened with Disney, and take it as a cautionary tale/lesson in Trumpy toothlessness.

Did Trump get anything out of this? Maybe a little bit of red meat for the base, red meat that has already been consumed. But beyond that, as Inigo Montoya might put it, it was "humiliations galore." As often as this happens, we are still amazed at this administration's total lack of interest in thinking through its choices, and gaming out how things might unfold. (Z)

This Week in Freudenfreude: It's "The Shawshank Redemption," Redux

Readers who have seen the classic 1994 film The Shawshank Redemption will know that it primarily focuses on one prisoner who is ostensibly rehabilitated but cannot handle life outside of prison (after nearly 50 years) and so takes his own life, one prisoner who is ostensibly rehabilitated, and looks like he will make it on the outside (the movie ends before we get full confirmation), and one prisoner who never needed to be rehabilitated and escapes. Those readers will also know that the story, like a great many Stephen King works, is set in Maine.

We could not help but think of that movie when we received this two-part story sent in by reader A.S. in Bedford, MA. It is, as you can guess, about rehabilitating prisoners in Maine.

The narrative begins more than two decades ago, with an endowment from philanthropist Doris Buffett (sister of Warren) and her Sunshine Lady Foundation. She gave money to allow prison inmates to take college courses. In that time, pretty much all college courses have gotten to the point that online access is a necessity. So, that led to laptops being issued to the inmates. And once you have education and computers, you can start learning practical skills, like coding.

The two linked stories are about the next step forward in the progression. Under the computer education program, the "final project" is to develop an app or a website that will, in some way, help prisoners. That's pretty good, in and of itself, but it gets better. Anyone who completes the coursework and the project not only has practical skills, they have proof-of-concept that they know how to apply those skills. And computer + Internet access + practical skills + proof of skills means that they are candidates for remote employment, for actual businesses. Maine has thus become the first state to allow prisoners to work remote jobs.

The benefits here are obvious. Not only are incarcerated folks developing a professional résumé and potential contacts in the outside world (some have continued in the same jobs after being released), they can also build a bankroll. One of the primary factors that pushes people back into crime after their release is that they don't have any other way to get money, and to pay for the necessities of life. The remote-work program has the potential to solve that problem. It should also be noted that the program also pays dividends while the participants are still incarcerated, as people who have hope and who have something worth hanging on to are much more likely to mind their p's and q's. For example, the number of assaults on prison staff has dropped 91% since the remote-work program was introduced. Even Andy Dufresne would be impressed (and you can bet that if he were around today, he'd be installing laptops in the Brooks Hatlen Memorial Library).

It is not a secret that the U.S. prison system is far less effective at rehabilitation than most European prison systems. That may have something to do with the United States' habit of arresting a far greater percentage of the population than in other nations. It may also have something to do with the view, often encouraged by the nation's leaders, including certain current residents of the Oval Office, that prisoners are less than human, are animals, etc. One can only hope that the successes in Maine will inspire other states, and suggest a different way forward.

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, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger