Sure Happy It’s Tuesday..fire away.

A Pennsylvania man was sentenced to five years probation after he admitted to illegally casting his dead mother's ballot for Donald Trump during the 2020 presidential election. https://t.co/6dhP0je5Tu

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) May 4, 2021

If he had lived in Texas or Tennessee and was African-American, I don’t believe it would have been just probation.

Expand the US House of Representatives

Upon the release last week of the first population counts for the 2020 Census, officials and activists across the country were preparing for the ugly process of fighting over the scarce number of seats that are up for grabs. New Yorkers were threatening legal moves to try to avoid losing a US House seat because the Census showed the state was 89 people short—out of 20.2 million—of the number needed to maintain its current level of representation. Voting rights activists were complaining of undercounts of Latinx voters in Arizona, Texas, and Florida. There will be lawsuits, legislative battles, and protests. But the bitter end result of all this wrangling will, if the pattern holds, be a circumstance in which the vast majority of Americans will be less well represented than when the process began.

That’s because the system, like so many of the power structures in the United States, is weighted against robust democracy. Indeed, of all the things that Americans don’t even know they should be angry about, this particular democracy deficit is the most frustrating. Why? First, because it extends from a century-old scheme to thwart change and diversity. Second, because there is no constitutional requirement that this inequity, and all the state-versus-state machinations that extend from it, should continue. A simple act of Congress could address the crude calculus that, with each new census, makes the House a less representative chamber.

THE NUMBERS TELL THE STORY
The 2010 Census counted 309,183,463 Americans for purposes of apportioning 435 seats in Congress. That meant that the average member of the House represented 710,767 people.

The 2020 Census has counted 331,108,434 Americans for purposes of apportioning the same 435 seats in Congress. However, because the overall population has increased by more than 7 percent, the average member of the House is now expected to represent 761,169 people—an increase of 50,402 constituents.

HOW RANKED-CHOICE VOTING IS CHANGING PROGRESSIVE POLITICS IN NEW YORK

Unless something changes, when all the redistricting and gerrymandering fights of 2021 and 2022 are done, the same number of House members will be called upon to provide representation and services to a significantly higher number of people. Practically, what that means is that representatives will be more distant from the constituents they are supposed to represent, that it will be more difficult for those constituents to advocate effectively on the issues, that it will be less likely that district offices can quickly respond to queries and meet requests for help. It also means that campaigns for competitive House seats, which will need to reach many more voters, will be more costly—a shift that, if history is any indicator, is likely to increase the influence of billionaire campaign donors and corporate political action committees.

What a lousy state of affairs. But that’s our fate, right? Like presidential elections that are made more complicated and less democratic by the Electoral College—which allows losers of the popular vote to assume the most powerful position in the world, and which focuses campaigns and media attention on a handful of “battleground” states—the reapportionment of congressional districts is destined to diminish representation and grassroots democr

Um, no.

REACTIONARY POLITICS SET HOUSE MEMBERSHIP AT 435
There is nothing in the Constitution that requires the number of House states to remain static. In fact, for the first 120 years of the American experiment, the size of the House generally grew after each new Census—from 65 members in the first Congress that served with President George Washington to more than 400 members in the Congress that served with President William Howard Taft. The boosts were often quite substantial, especially during the period of mass immigration in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. For instance, after the 1900 Census, membership in the House jumped from 356 to 386. After the 1910 Census, the boost was even bigger, from 386 to 433—an increase of 47 seats.

“The expansion generally was managed in such a way that, even as the representation ratio steadily rose, states seldom lost seats from one apportionment to the next,” explained a 2018 Pew Research Center study of apportionment.

Unfortunately, as the Pew study noted, “that process ran aground in the 1920s. The 1920 census revealed a ‘major and continuing shift’ of the U.S. population from rural to urban areas; when the time came to reapportion the House, as a Census Bureau summary puts it, rural representatives ‘worked to derail the process, fearful of losing political power to the cities.’”

The 1920 Census revealed that the United States was no longer a primarily agrarian nation. It showed that the majority of Americans lived in urban (or at least relatively urban) centers, as opposed to farm country. Urban members proposed after the next apportionment increased the number of House members to 483 members, a move that would have assured that each state retained its current level of representation. But they were blocked by the rural members, who were resistant to changes in the chamber’s makeup at a time when immigrants were crowding into the nation’s large cities, Blacks were moving from the segregated South to Northern states where they were allowed to vote, and women were newly enfranchised. Before the 1930 Census, legislation was hastily enacted to formally cap the number of seats at 435.

And there it remains, more than a century after the last democracy-friendly apportionment of House seats.

I don’t see this happening under Biden, but one never knows. The 2022 mid-terms may see some movement.

Her campaign, long expected by local Democrats, further transforms a contest that in some past Georgia election cycles was hardly an afterthought – and is now poised to be one of the nation’s most-watched down-ballot elections. #gapol https://t.co/MPsL2ufJ9s

— Greg Bluestein (@bluestein) May 4, 2021

U.S. trustee opposes NRA bankruptcy petition in blow to gun rights group

A U.S. bankruptcy administrator asked a federal judge Monday to dismiss the National Rifle Association’s efforts to declare bankruptcy or appoint a trustee or examiner to oversee the gun rights organization — a setback for the group at the close of a federal court hearing to consider its petition.

The recommendation bolstered the arguments of New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), whose office has fought the NRA’s attempts to relocate from New York to Texas, and came after senior NRA executives acknowledged in court testimony that they received lavish perks.

Lisa Lambert, a lawyer with the U.S. trustee’s office — which participates in bankruptcy cases to protect taxpayer interests and enforce bankruptcy laws — told the court that the evidence presented in the hearing showed that the nonprofit organization lacked proper oversight and that personal expenses were masked as business costs.

Adam Levitin, a bankruptcy expert at the Georgetown University Law Center, said the position of the trustee — a Justice Department official who typically remains neutral in a bankruptcy proceeding — does not bode well for the NRA.

“I don’t see how the NRA pulls off a win here,” he said, adding: “I think it’s pretty clear that the NRA loses. The real question is what the remedy will be.”

In court Monday, NRA lawyer Greg Garman expressed disappointment in Lambert’s comments, saying: “We have natural enemies. This Department of Justice may not see eye to eye with the National Rifle Association, but so be it, we have done the right thing.”

The NRA began considering bankruptcy last year after James filed a lawsuit seeking to dissolve the gun rights organization, alleging that senior NRA executives used the organization to benefit themselves and their friends.

The NRA responded by accusing the attorney general of pursuing a political agenda. The group announced in January that it was declaring bankruptcy and moving from New York, where it was founded in 1871, to Texas, where the state attorney general and other officials offered a warm welcome.

On Monday, Gerrit Pronske, an attorney for New York state, called the gun lobby’s attempted move “a circus sideshow” designed to avoid legal accountability, warning that approving its reorganization plan risked turning bankruptcy courts into “a haven for wrongdoers.”

Garman countered that the bankruptcy plan was vital to the survival and future success of what he termed “an irreplaceable” civil rights organization.

“There is no one who stands in the breach to defend the Second Amendment other than the NRA,” Garman said in his closing arguments Monday afternoon.

The NRA has said it is in sound financial condition but needs to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection because of the existential threat presented by James’s lawsuit.

NRA chief Wayne LaPierre acknowledges he did not disclose bankruptcy plans or luxury yacht trips to other top officials

Judge Harlin Hale is weighing the complex case from his Dallas courtroom, hearing requests via Webex videoconference from New York state and other parties to dismiss the NRA bankruptcy petition, and if that fails, to appoint a trustee to run the organization while it is in bankruptcy.

Hale has said he expects to issue a decision in about a week.

The hearing called renewed attention to the inner workings of the long-powerful gun lobby as President Biden and congressional Democrats have called for new gun regulations following a rash of deadly shootings across the country.

The NRA submitted a reorganization plan Monday that calls for payment of outstanding debts and leaving in place the current management — including longtime NRA chief Wayne LaPierre. The plan was approved Sunday in a closed-door meeting of the NRA board, according to a person familiar with the vote, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the session.

NRA lawyers argued throughout the bankruptcy hearing that LaPierre has been an effective manager and a fundraising powerhouse for the group, which says it has more than 5 million members. The lawyers said LaPierre has imposed more rigorous fiscal management in recent years and noted that the reorganization plan calls for a compliance officer, a new position in the organization.

Under questioning from New York state’s attorneys, LaPierre acknowledged that he did not disclose receiving lavish perks, including access to luxurious yachts and $300,000 in suits from an exclusive Beverly Hills boutique.

The hearing also pulled back the curtain on the internal actions of top NRA officials.

Several witnesses testified that LaPierre did not inform the full NRA board or its general counsel of plans to declare bankruptcy before announcing it publicly.

And the NRA’s current president, Carolyn Meadows, acknowledged in testimony read into the record that she destroyed notes and records in advance of a subpoena from the New York attorney general. Meadows testified that the records that were discarded included personal and medical information.

Attorneys for the NRA acknowledged during the hearing that “cringeworthy activity” had occurred in the past — but they maintained governance had improved under LaPierre, who they said showed a willingness to fire NRA executives who had misused their positions.

“It is very, very true that we don’t run from what happened before 2018, but, your honor, we are safe, we are secure, we are a well-run organization,” Garman said Monday. “We have responsible new parties in place to ensure that the transparency, the trustworthiness that the court and the parties require is here.”

Lubbock votes to become the state’s largest “sanctuary city for the unborn”

Lubbock voters on Saturday backed a “sanctuary city for the unborn” ordinance that tries to outlaw abortions in the city’s limits, likely prompting a lawsuit over what opponents say is an unconstitutional ban on the procedure.

The unofficial vote, 62% for and 38% against the measure, comes less than a year after Planned Parenthood opened a clinic in Lubbock and months after the City Council rejected the ordinance on legal grounds and warned it could tee up a costly court fight.

The passage of the ordinance makes Lubbock one of some two dozen cities that have declared themselves a “sanctuary … for the unborn” and tried to prohibit abortions from being performed locally. But none of the cities in the movement — which started in the East Texas town of Waskom in 2019 — has been as big as Lubbock and none of them have been home to an abortion provider.

It’s unclear when the ordinance will go into effect, and if it will be challenged in court.

The push to declare Lubbock a “sanctuary city for the unborn” began in the last two years and was galvanized by the arrival of a Planned Parenthood clinic in 2020. Anti-abortion activists gathered enough signatures to bring the ordinance to the City Council — where it was voted down for conflicting with state law and Supreme Court rulings — and to then put it to a citywide vote.

Ardent supporters of the measure, who liken abortion to murder, say it reflects the views held by many in conservative Lubbock. They believe the ordinance would stand up in court and say they have an attorney who will defend the city free of charge if it is challenged.

But the strategy of bringing the abortion fight to the local level has divided even staunch anti-abortion activists, and Texas towns like Omaha and Mineral Wells have voted down similar ordinances or walked them back under advice from city attorneys.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, which previously sued seven East Texas towns that passed similar ordinances, has said they were watching the vote closely and hinted at a lawsuit in a statement Saturday.

For me, it’s Thomas Wolfe. If Lubbock is this serious about being a jail sanctuary for women exercising their rights under Roe v Wade, then I don’t wish to support the town anyway. When TTU calls to obtain a donation, I will tell them that I cannot support a university in town that voted to take away women’s reproductive rights. Yet, it says no one has the right to tell anyone to wear a mask.

We don’t have a shortage of willing workers. We have a shortage of employers who refuse to pay workers enough to live after receiving hundreds of billions in forgivable, tax exempt loans. And I have zero sympathy for them.

— Warren Gunnels (@GunnelsWarren) May 4, 2021