Support Our Journalism

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless

Politics National News World Economy Lifestyle Store

Start your day with The National Memo Newsletter

Constitution

As Nebraska Goes In 2024, So Could Go Maine

@FromaHarrop

Gov. Jim Pillen

Every state is different. Nebraska is quite different. It is one of only two states that doesn't use the winner-take-all system in presidential elections. Along with Maine, it allocates its Electoral College votes to reflect the results in each of its congressional districts.

In 2020, Donald Trump lost the Omaha-based congressional district while winning Nebraska's other two. That cost him one electoral vote. In a very close election, that one vote could matter. Hence, Trump and his people have been pressuring Nebraska to adopt "winner-take-all," whereby whatever candidate received the most votes statewide would get all five of Nebraska's electoral votes.

This move is especially bold because in 2016, Trump did win Omaha's district. One supposes he could win it again the old-fashioned way, by getting more people to vote for him than for Joe Biden. As he's proved in terrifying ways, Trump is not a stickler for honoring the will of the people.

Don Bacon, the Republican representing the Omaha district, supports the Trump camp's efforts to change the state's method for assigning electoral votes. "I think it undermines the influence of Nebraska," he told CNN.

The opposite is more likely. Were Nebraska to embrace "winner-take-all," neither candidate would have great incentive to campaign there at all. As for the politics of it, one strains to understand how pushing to deprive his constituents the right to allocate their electoral vote is going to win Bacon love in his purple district.

So far these efforts have failed, even in the GOP-dominated state legislature. Good for them.

But pressure remains. Nebraska's current Republican governor, Jim Pillen, has offered to support a special legislative session to move the state to winner-take-all. "I will sign (winner-take-all) into law the moment the legislature gets it to my desk," he vowed.

However, Nebraska's unique political culture is deservedly a point of pride. There could be blowback on those who help outsiders try to change it.

For example, Nebraska is the only state with a one-chamber legislature. This dates back to 1934, when Nebraskans voted to replace a governing body with both a House and a Senate with a unicameral one. Party affiliations are not listed on the ballot.

This reform was pushed through by George W. Norris, a devout Republican. Norris argued that there was no logic in having a two-house legislature. On the contrary, it cost the taxpayers more money and made politicians less accountable to the people.

"The greatest evil of two-house legislature is its institution of the conference committee," Norris wrote in his autobiography. That's where power brokers could fiddle with passed bills.

"There the 'bosses' and the special interests and the monopolies get in their secret work behind the scenes," Norris wrote. "There the elimination of a sentence or paragraph, or even a word, may change the meaning of the entire law."

Meanwhile, were "reliably Democratic" Maine to adopt a winner-take-all system, that would cancel any Republican advantage in a Nebraska that did likewise. Maine's rural 2nd congressional district favored Trump both in 2016 and 2020.

Adding intrigue, Maine's House recently narrowly voted to have the state join an interstate compact that would assign its Electoral College votes to whatever presidential candidate won the national popular vote. So far 16 states have joined the compact, which would go into effect only if the members have enough electoral votes to determine the outcome.

In 2020, Biden won over seven million more popular votes than Trump did. And in 2016, Hillary Clinton comfortably beat Trump in the popular vote by three million.

It would not seem in Republicans' interests to encourage states to change how they count electoral votes. After all, as Nebraska goes, so could Maine.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Nebraska

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

These Are The Ways Trump Will Destroy Liberty In A Second Term

@monacharenEPPC

Donald Trump

Apparently interpreting the Supreme Court's decision on the 14th Amendment as a personal vote of confidence, Donald Trump pushed his luck, urging the justices to rule swiftly that he has absolute immunity as well.

That is not likely. Most observers thought the court would reject Colorado's action because permitting it would have invited chaos in the middle of an ongoing election and because the court husbands its legitimacy. Had it upheld Colorado's disqualification, the court would instantly have become a hate object for 70% of Republicans, who would have perceived its ruling as baldly political, denying to voters their free choice of candidate.

The presidential immunity claim is another matter. A ruling that completely adopted Trump's position in that case would essentially gut the Constitution, permitting a president to accept bribes, use taxpayer money to build a series of palaces for himself all over the world, or arrest and torture his critics. As the D.C. Circuit Court put it: "At bottom, former President Trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches."

Here's the rub: If Trump is reelected in November, he will essentially have total immunity, regardless of what the court says.

A reelected Trump would have the voters' imprimatur for lawlessness. If he wins in November, the message from voters will be: Yes, we know he mishandled the most sensitive classified documents and obstructed justice rather than return them. And we know he caused the deaths of millions of COVID patients by lying about the threat of the virus and discouraging precautions. And we know he invited his followers to threaten and harass innocent election workers, secretaries of state and governors. And we know that he called for shoplifters to be shot on sight and said the Constitution should be terminated. We know he said he'd be a dictator for a day. Above all, we know that he attempted to subvert the peaceful transfer of power and remain in office despite the will of the people. And we chose him anyway. Reelection would grant absolution for all of it.

The supposed guardrails of democracy are already creaking and groaning at the prospect of another Trump term. Just look at the state of the GOP. As a "might be" president, he is already able to dictate the composition of the Republican National Committee, rig a primary in Nevada, kill a border bill that would have given Republicans 90% of what they've been demanding for years and undermine Republican support for Ukraine.

Now imagine that Trump is president again and instructs the Justice Department to bring treason charges against Jack Smith. Who will stop him? The carefully vetted MAGA lawyers he has hired precisely for their loyalty?

What if he instructs the IRS to audit and fine Liz Cheney, Adam Schiff, George Conway, and hundreds of other prominent critics? This violates IRS rules. But will IRS employees, again hired for loyalty to Trump, demur? After all, he did run on the promise, "I am your retribution," and his voters agreed.

What if he directs the SEC to investigate banks that refuse to loan the Trump Organization money? Would any whistleblower risk his job or worse?

What if, in response to street demonstrations, Trump invokes the Insurrection Act and federalizes the national guard, allowing the military to shut down protests and arrest (or worse) demonstrators without cause?

In Trump's first term, he was partially thwarted by strong institutions, yes — but above all by a deep commitment to the rule of law among the citizens of this country. A mid-level NSC staffer found the courage to defy the president's illegal and immoral acts because of his deep faith in the people's values. As Alexander Vindman said to his father, who, having grown up in the totalitarian USSR, worried about what might happen to his son for opposing the president, "Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth."

Except he wasn't. Not quite. He and (for spite) his twin brother were fired from the NSC. His military promotion was put on hold. He was harassed. It would be far, far worse in a second Trump term. Would there even be Alexander Vindmans in a second Trump presidency?

Doubtful. The mob justice that Trump has practiced and been rewarded for would intimidate nearly all. And they would not be enough to preserve constitutional democracy.

As Judge Learned Hand said in his 1944 "Spirit of Liberty" speech:

"I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."

On April 22, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on presidential immunity and will perhaps issue a ruling full of pious talk about the rule of law. But the words will be empty if Trump is elected.