Miscellaneous

Yesterday afternoon I was wondering what Joe Manchin’s West Virgnia voters were going to tell him when he went home for the Christmas recess. This morning, on Fox News Sunday, we got the answer.

Build Back Better is going nowhere, thanks to Joe Manchin. Biden is a failed President, and the next two elections, in 2022 and 2024, will be wipeouts of the Democratic Party. It will be so bad that it will somehow have to reconstitute itself be competitive.

Evolve, or die.

Republicans, meanwhile, will become the majority party. A lot of Asians, blacks, and especially Hispanics will not just vote against Democrats, they’ll become Republicans.

If demography is destiny, as we’ve been assured, it now may work for the Republicans.

[All of the foregoing is on the assumption that Trump will not be the nominee in 2024. Of that, I’m becoming more confident every day.]

Why does Congress have the right to control the conduct of its own elections? Why don’t the states have the authority to decide how their members of Congress are elected?

That question was raised at the Constitutional Convention on August 9, 1787, in a motion by John Rutledge and Charles Pinckney of South Carolina. James Madison rose in opposition to the motion, and argued at length that the states should not be given this power. He said “the State Legislatures will sometimes fail or refuse to consult the common interest at the expense of their local convenience or prejudices.” And he said “It was impossible to foresee all the abuses that might be made of the discretionary power.” He argued that since many state legislatures were malapportioned, their congressional districts would also be malapportioned. He also claimed that since the state legislatures chose their senators, “the latter could therefor be trusted, their representatives could not be dangerous.” Madison was persuasive, and the Rutledge-Pinckney motion did not prevail.

Madison’s reliance on the Senate to protect the states’ interests made some sense before the 17th Amendment, which took Senate elections away from state legislatures.. In the 19th century, many state legislators sold their vote to the highest bidder, and a Senate seat could be purchased. The Senate would not address the problem, so reformers began the first serious attempt to use Article V. When they had 30 of the 32 state resolutions needed to call for an Amendment Convention, the Senate finally passed the 17th Amendment. Madison’s fear of malapportionment was also, of course, before Reynolds v. Sims, which declared the practice unconstitutional,

And in 1787 it was far fetched to think that Congress, abusing this power over its own elections, would create a thoroughly corrupt and rigged system for its own benefit.

The idea of entrusting Congress with the power to control its own elections is an 18th century relic, and it needs to be revisited. State legislators need to call for an Article V Amendment Convention on campaign finance reform. In order to be ratified by 38 states, any proposed amendment must be bipartisan, and must include provisions ensuring that no state discriminate against voting by racial or other minorities.

This is campaign finance reform, on a state by state basis.

Proposed 28th Amendment: (1)Article 1, Section 4 is repealed and reenacted to read, The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in in each State by the Legislature thereof; but no State shall, in its elections, discriminate against voters on the basis of race, sex, or national origin. (2) Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to forbid the States from reasonably regulating and limiting contributions and spending in campaigns, elections or ballot measures. (3) The States shall have the power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and may distinguish between natural persons and artificial entities, including by prohibiting artificial entities from raising and spending money in campaigns, elections, or ballot measures

What’s Joe Manchin going to hear when he spends his Christmas back in West Virginia? Will people give him heat for slowing Biden’s agenda? Or, instead, will he hear about the rising cost of food, and gas, and other necessities? What do Joe’s voters want him to do?

I’ve got a pretty good guess, and if I’m right Biden’s agenda is up in smoke. After one year in office, he will be a failed President.

Why does our Constitution give us the chance, every ten years, to call for a Constitutional Convention?  The answer is in Article I, sec. 2, which declares “All political power is inherent in the people.  All government originates with the people.”If this is true, the people must have the right to intervene in the normal workings of their government, when the necessity arises.  In the 62 years since the Constitution went into effect, such an intervention has not been needed.  Now, for the first time, it clearly is.Alaska’s politicians have failed to resolve the future of the Permanent Fund Dividend.  Partisan and personal rivalries have divided the legislature into two warring factions.  One wants the so-called full dividend, according to a formula adopted in the 1980’s, which was followed until 2015.  Another feels the state needs much or most of this money to provide the government services that Alaskans are accustomed to.For the past five years these two factions have been at war with one another, and legislative sessions are dominated by this issue.  Countless special sessions have been called.  Nothing seems to work.  Legislators, and governors, come and go.  Elections are held.  Promises are made.  There’s no reason to hope that more elections, and new people, will change a thing.If our politicians can’t resolve this issue, the people can.  They must vote for a Convention, and then elect delegates who they know and trust.  They must closely monitor the deliberations of the Convention, and in the end they must decide if the solution offered is acceptable.Are the people of Alaska capable of this?  Are there qualified men and women who are able and willing to serve as delegates?  What are we afraid of?  Ourselves?They won’t admit it, but those opposed to a Convention are afraid of the people.  They feel they can’t be trusted with this kind of power.  Left unsaid is the belief that only an elite is qualified for such weighty matters, and the people aren’t.  Or maybe the real reason for their opposition is that they just don’t like the dividend. In fact, the Convention would have only one power, the power to propose amendments.  And then it’s up to the people to decide.  Yes or no?  Is the solution offered acceptable?I think the people of this state are perfectly capable of exercising this power responsibly.  So did the men and women who wrote our Constitution.  Do you?  If you don’t trust the people, who do you trust?  Some elite?.  That’s not the Alaska way.  That’s not the American way.There’s much more that needs to be discussed on this issue, and everyone’s voice deserves to be heard.  We have a little less than a year before we, collectively, render our decision at the ballot box.I will continue to argue, as forcefully as I can, that the people should trust themselves. And that if you want the dividend, you should vote for the Convention.

Lisa Murkowski had little hope of reelection in 2022, until her friends devised and implemented Prop. 2.  Her vote to impeach Trump was not an act of courage.  It was a calculated ploy to attract Democratic votes in the instant runoff, which we’ll have under Prop 2’s ranked choice voting.  Prop 2 passed because of millions of dollars from outside dark money groups and aggressive ballot harvesting.  This was ironic since it was sold as an anti-dark money law.  But that was camouflage.  Its real purpose was to help Murkowski get reelected.Sadly, there’s an excellent chance it will work.  Her principle conservative challenger, Kelly Tshibaka, is a novice politician, who succumbed to the temptation to join Trump world.  Trump’s endorsement gave her credibility, and donations, but it came at a high price.For one thing she committed to hire National Public Affairsas as her consultant, at the outlandish price of $50,000 a month.  This is a recently formed group of veterans from Trump’s unsuccessful reelection campaign.  They don’t know anything about Alaska, and have encouraged her to emphasize her ties to Trump.That’s exactly the wrong strategy, but she has made the commitment, and it’s too late for her to walk away from it.   As reported by MRAK, Democratic operative Jim Lottsfeldt has already formed a PAC, Alaskans for Lisa, which will try to convince Alaska Democrats and independents to vote for her.  His pitch will be, a vote for Murkowski is a vote against Trump.  If she emerges from the first round of voting on August 18th as the clear favorite, it will be a severe blow to Trump’s credibility as a 2024 candidate.  If he can’t beat Murkowski in Alaska, how can he claim to own the Republican Party?Lisa Murkowski does not have, and has never had, any business representing Alaska in the United States Senate.  Appointed by her father in 2003, she managed to win her 2024 race only because she successfully, and falsely, claimed to be a conservative.  That avenue was no longer open to her in 2010, and she lost the Republican primary to Tea Party candidate Joe Miller.  But the Anchorage Daily News was able to discredit Miller by setting up a journalistic ambush, allowing her financial backers to succeed in running a write in campaign on her behalf.In 2016 she was ripe to be picked off, but no credible conservative challenger emerged.  Mike Dunleavy seriously considered it, but decided to run for Governor instead.Next year she’ll be more vulnerable than ever.  Her vote against the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh was outrageous.  Her explanation, that he lacked judicial temperament, was a blatant lie.  The real reason was her expectation that Kavanaugh would be the fifth vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.Murkowski has been an embarrassment in the Senate.  She’s capricious, a liberal drama queen with limited intelligence.  She’s no more effective than her father was.  As the Wall Street Journal memorably described him in an editorial, Frank Murkowski was, at best, a utility infielder.  If it weren’t for being so closely tied to Trump, Tshibaka could have beaten her, even under ranked choice voting.  But because of Tshibaka’s identification with Trump, in the runoff Democrats and independents will happily vote for a woman they really don’t respect.If, as expected, Republicans are able to organize both the Alaska House and Senate in 2023, 2022 will be an anomaly in Alaska political history.  They’ll be able to pass a bill restoring political primaries, with only the nominees of recognized political parties competing in the general election, with ranked choice voting.  Independents who win 20-25% of the vote on primary day could also be listed as candidates.  The prohibitions against dark money will remain in place.Actually, a statute might not be necessary, since Prop 2 is probably in violation of Tashjian v. Republican Party.  But don’t expect it to be thrown out before the election.  It’s a similar situation to 1986, when the Alaska Supreme Court declared invalid the closed Republican primary.  That decision helped Sen. Ted Stevens defeat David Cuddy in the Republican Senate primary.  The Alaska Court System is friendly to some candidates, and hostile to others.  We have one of the most politically active courts in the country, and they always seem willing to help out candidates and causes that appeal to them.So, if it occurs the 2022 reelection of Murkowski will have an asterisk by it,  “Made possible because of no political primary.”  But she’ll still have six more years to pretend that she should be taken seriously.If a serious, non-Trump, Republican files by June 1st, her scheme could still be foiled. Distancing yourself from Trump, personally, while endorsing, wholeheartedly, the Trump agenda, is the winning combination.  It worked last month in Virginia.  It will work anywhere.  And there are a number of ways for a senate candidate to attract Democrat votes in the instant runoff.  I’ll volunteer my services if someone electable steps forward..
Fritz Pettyjohn was Frank Murkowski’s deputy campaign manager in 1980, and once had hopes of succeeding him in the Senate.