A place were I can write...

My simple blog of pictures of travel, friends, activities and the Universe we live in as we go slowly around the Sun.



November 04, 2024

Fresh flooding hits Barcelona

Spain rescuers search underground parking as fresh flooding hits Barcelona

Nick Beake, Amy Walker

The Spanish city of Barcelona has been hit by flooding on Monday, as search and rescue efforts continue following devastating flooding around Valencia last week.

Spain's state meteorological agency has placed parts of Catalonia on red alert for torrential rain, with local media showing footage of cars partially submerged on a highway.

Parts of the Barcelona's El Prat airport, the second largest in the country, have been flooded. More than 80 flights have been cancelled or delayed, while rail services have been suspended.

A similar weather event, which hit the Valencia region with a year's worth of rain last week, has caused at least 217 deaths. On Monday, rescuers focused their efforts on searching for missing people in underground car parks.

The storm caught many victims in their vehicles on roads and in underground spaces, such as car parks, tunnels and garages, where rescue operations are particularly difficult.

It is feared shoppers and workers were trapped inside the car park at a shopping mall in Aldaia, on the outskirts of Valencia, as floodwater overwhelmed the area.

Police have confirmed that no victims were located in the first 50 vehicles inspected at the site.

But reports suggest these vehicles were found near the entrance to the car park, with much of the rest of it still submerged and yet to be explored.

Among the dead were a British couple in their 70s, whose family confirmed they had been found dead in their car days after the flash floods hit Valencia. So far no deaths have been reported in Catalonia.

On Monday morning, Spain’s interior minister refused to say how many were still missing.

Outside the Bonaire shopping mall in Aldaia, rotting piles of debris lined the roads while noisy generators pumped water from the mall car park.

Spanish police were using drones to get an initial view of the inside, a police spokesperson said.

When the BBC asked a local police officer how much longer the operation would take, he said he could not give an estimate, but that teams would stay as long as necessary.

As is the case in many parts of the region that have been devastated by the floods, there is a vacuum of information.

There has been anger at a perceived lack of warning and insufficient support from authorities after the floods.

On Sunday, the king and queen of Spain were pelted with mud and other objects by angry protesters during a visit to the town of Paiporta - one of the worst-affected in the Valencia region.

Objects were also thrown at Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, who was quickly evacuated.

The Civil Guard has opened an investigation into the chaotic scenes, Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska told public broadcaster TVE.

He blamed "marginal groups" for instigating the violence where mud spattered the monarchs' face and clothes.

Why Valencia floods proved so deadly

In a news conference on Monday, the chief of Spain's Military Emergencies Unit (UME) said it had pre-deployed 500 troops to Valencia so they could begin working as soon as they were authorised to.

General Francisco Javier Marcos said that when he saw the situation worsen, he sent alerts to 1,000 soldiers, who travelled overnight "so that by dawn the next day, people of Valencia could see that the armed forces were there".

He added: "You might say we didn't intervene rapidly. The weather prevented that partially, and secondly, it was a matter of order and discipline.

"You might say that doesn't justify being slow - well look, you can't bring more chaos to an already very chaotic situation."

Local authorities in Valencia have extended travel restrictions for another two days to facilitate the work of the emergency services, cancelled school classes and urged people to work from home.

Gen Marcos said gridlock on some roads was making it hard to distribute food to the 69 affected municipalities.

He said that the number of troops on the ground had been "scaled up" - with 7,800 due by 20:00 local time (19:00 GMT) on Monday. These were being supported by 17,000 volunteers and 5,000 army soldiers offering logistical support, he said.

A warship carrying 104 marine infantry soldiers as well as trucks with food and water docked in Valencia's port on Monday.

Gen Marcos said the UME was "doing everything we can", including working double shifts.

He added: "We must be disciplined and we must be patient. I know that's hard, because pain and emotion means that's not easy."

In Catalonia, the Ministry for Ecology said that the State Meteorological Agency (Aemet) had issued a red alert due to the "extreme danger" of torrential rains.

Aemet is warning that up to 8cm of rain could fall across coastal areas into Tuesday morning - but that localised downpours could lead to "very different" accumulations between nearby towns.

The flooding in Valencia was caused by a Dana phenomenon - when warm, moist air meets cold air, creating an unstable weather system.

Scientists say the effects of climate change made the floods worse.

Will turn into the shit-show it is........

‘I Think We’re in Trouble’: Is There a Future for MAGA After Trump?

Trump could be reelected. But what happens to his movement after that?

By David Siders

The tailgate was aimed at boosting a protégé, but it was Donald Trump whose name and image were plastered everywhere — on the banner hung from Republicans’ table outside the Arizona State University football game, on baseball caps, on signs they carried and stickers they fixed to tank-tops on a Friday night where the pavement was still hot and the temperature, at dusk, hovered around 95 degrees.

They might have turned out to support the protégé, Kari Lake, but it was his movement — Trump’s — that the tailgaters were starting to worry about.

What would become of MAGA when Trump — either in four years if he wins the presidency again or sooner if he loses — is gone? Could someone else replace him?

“I’ve often wondered that,” said Terri Seiber, who sat beside me on the curb in front of two porta potties, a Trump-Vance yard sign in the dark beside her. “We don’t have anybody in the Republican Party who’s even close.”

Not Lake, she said. “No, I don’t think so.” Seiber had seen her collapse in the gubernatorial race two years ago and knew she was running behind her Democratic opponent in the Senate contest, now, too.

Not JD Vance, Trump’s running mate. “No. He sounds like a real great guy. But Trump, he’s just got that oomph about him.”

Who else?

“It does make me worry,” she told me. “The movement is mostly him.”

I’d come to Arizona to ask not about the presidential contest that culminates Tuesday but about what will happen after that, about the post-Trump future of MAGA. If Republicans anywhere have an answer, it should be here. For all its history of electing iconoclasts — politicians like Barry Goldwater and John McCain, but also Kyrsten Sinema and Jeff Flake — Arizona has also seen them run their course.

In the MAGA era, there are few states where Republicans have remade themselves so completely in service to the cause. Arizona was the site, not far from Lake’s tailgate, of the farcical “audit” of the 2020 election and provided a border-state backdrop for Trump’s nativist, anti-migrant rhetoric. Republicans elevated hard-liners at every level in their primaries and paid an uncommonly high price, losing both Senate seats and, in 2020, flipping Democratic in a presidential race for the first time since 1996. In the midterms two years later, Lake lost the gubernatorial race, as did Republicans running for U.S. Senate, state attorney general and secretary of state.

Along the way, the state GOP, in going full fringe, produced one of the most vivid demonstrations anywhere of the singularity of Trump’s appeal. While the former president is leading Vice President Kamala Harris here narrowly in recent polls, Lake, once one of the MAGA movement’s most promising rising stars, has been all but written off, running about 4 percentage points behind Rep. Ruben Gallego, the Democratic nominee.

Acknowledging things for Lake were “getting kind of grim,” Alex Stansberry, the vice president of the College Republicans at ASU, put the problem succinctly: “The only person who’s been able to win on the MAGA platform is Trump.”

That doesn’t mean it’s dying. Stansberry told me MAGA could be “even more powerful” if it stayed away from the issue of abortion, an albatross for Republicans since the fall of Roe v. Wade. Carson Carpenter, the College Republicans’ president at ASU, said he suspects MAGA will continue “but be rebranded” with a “different spin.”

But if it were simply a matter of ideology, or if the branding was readily transferable, the movement might not have a problem at all. Any number of Republicans have picked up Trump’s shifting policy positions, but no one here was talking about getting on the “Lake Train.”

And if MAGA does need a charismatic leader, the question increasingly weighing on the rank-and-file in Arizona and elsewhere is who that might be. Sooner or later — possibly later, regardless of the outcome in November, given the groundwork Trump is laying to contest a defeat — it won’t be the former president. Trump has said he doesn’t “think” he’d run again in 2028, when he would be 82.

Waiting by Lake’s campaign bus for the candidate to arrive, Sydney Gilliland, president of ASU’s chapter of the conservative student group Turning Point USA suggested it could be a good thing. “Too many people are obsessed with MAGA,” she said. One reason, she noted, is that for some young Republicans and independents like her, Trump and MAGA is all they really know.

“We’ve been listening to Trump since 2016,” she told me. “I was in middle school. Now I’m graduating from college.” She said she was looking forward to “new faces” and is “more excited about 2028” than 2024.

But her mother, Lisa Gilliland, was standing beside her and noticed the crowd for one of those newer faces, Lake, was predictably thin.

“This isn’t much of a turnout,” she said. After Trump, she said, “I think we’re in trouble.”

The most obvious successor to Trump, sometimes referred to by Republicans as the “heir apparent” or “front-runner to be the president after Donald Trump,” is his apprentice, Vance, whose stock appeared to rise after his polished performance in the vice presidential debate.

But it didn’t rise by much. His approval ratings, dismal when Trump picked him, are still upside down. Even some of the Republicans I spoke with who are fond of Vance cringed recalling the video of his awkward encounter at the donut shop. And in recent decades, GOP vice presidents don’t have a tremendous record of ascending to the presidency. Vance might ask Sarah Palin, if Trump loses, or Dan Quayle, if he wins, how things turned out for them.

And what about the rest of the MAGA set?

There’s Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor who once looked to many Republicans like a future president. But some MAGA diehards haven’t forgiven him for challenging Trump in the GOP primary. It’s been months since Kristi Noem, the South Dakota governor, was regularly making headlines — and that was for shooting her 14-month-old dog. Lake, once glad to be called “Trump in a dress,” has lost one race, for governor, and is fading in her Senate campaign. (When I spoke with her briefly outside an event the weekend I visited, Lake said public polls in her race are “absolute trash and garbage right now” and that, in her assessment, she was running 2 percentage points behind Trump.)

And then there’s everyone else in the tent, or in the wilderness somewhere around it.

The day after the tailgate, I went to a meet-and-greet that Lake was holding at HitSquad Ninja Gym, in a shopping center across town. A child was climbing a rope suspended from the ceiling. Others were playing gaga ball. A handful of supporters sat around tables set up with centerpieces and tablecloths for a birthday party.

One man told me he liked Charlie Kirk, the Turning Point founder. Another predicted the GOP would nominate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in 2028. Another said he liked Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah. (Yes, truly. But he still detested McCain.) And elsewhere during my visit, I heard any number of different names: DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy, Tucker Carlson, Lara Trump, Candace Owens, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump Jr. or Ivanka Trump. (“That hottie could get any man to do what she tells him to,” Jerry Stepke, who sells Trump hats, told me.)

One former Trump adviser speaking on condition of anonymity said they suspected “there’s somebody who is going to be able to pick up the MAGA flag and put a much better face on it … without it being so harsh and angry and hateful, without it always sounding so asshole-ish.”

But around the tables at HitSquad Ninja Gym, there was no consensus about who that person might be. And there was a lot of concern about the uncertainty of it all.

“I’m scared to death about it,” said Larry Schroeder, who brought his children to the gym. “I hope we can find somebody who’s going to be able to fill these shoes.”

When I asked him who, he said, “I can’t think of anybody at the moment.”

The possibility some in the rank-and-file are afraid of is that it could all fall apart. Arizona Republicans have seen that happen to conservative movements before. This is the state that launched Goldwater, the senator who mobilized the party’s conservatives before his landslide defeat in 1964. Decades later, Governing magazine described Arizona as “the poster child for Tea Party politics,” another conservative movement which ultimately fizzled.

“These boomlets kind of come and go,” said Sal Russo, a former Ronald Reagan aide and Tea Party Express co-founder. “They all come and go.”

And even if Trump is more than a boomlet, for more traditionalist Republicans, the comparison is at least a cause for hope when it comes to MAGA.

One afternoon in Phoenix, Bill Gates, the Republican Maricopa County supervisor who gained national attention for his resistance to election disinformation in the state following the 2020 election, described Trump to me as an “anti” politician.

And, he said, “If you’re an anti-person, that doesn’t build a long-lasting movement, because eventually, people want to be for something.”

Or, perhaps, they are “star fuckers,” as Barrett Marson, an anti-Trump Republican political strategist in the state, put it. He’d read Trump’s The Art of the Deal as a teenager. Like everyone else, he knew Trump from TV before he was a candidate. The reason Marson was optimistic about MAGA fading was that Trump’s appeal was “so much more about identity,” about celebrity, than Republican orthodoxy.

Over dinner one night, he ordered an iced tea.

“Donald Trump, he’s a singular figure,” he said. “No one can emulate him. No one can imitate him.”

Of MAGA, Marson said, “The fever’s got to break.”

The fever hasn’t broken yet. Trump, after losing Arizona in 2020, is polling narrowly ahead in the state. And when he visited Prescott Valley, about an hour and a half north of Phoenix, for a rally recently, lines wrapped around the block and back to the Walmart across the street.

“U-S-A!” the people in line chanted. Then, “Trump, Trump, Trump.”

Maybe they’ll be chanting his name for decades — the Trumpian version of Republicans’ near-obligatory references to Reagan today. MAGA, said John Speer, is not an organization, but “a principle. It’s a belief. So, it won’t die.”

Still, it was hard for many rally-goers to imagine what it will look like for the GOP when Trump is not on the ballot.

Speer said, “There isn’t any politician who can draw a crowd like this.” Not even “if Jesus Christ were to show up today,” another man said.

Inside, people filtered into the arena carrying popcorn and sodas. And when Trump appeared on stage, the crowd erupted.

“I love you!” someone screamed.

“We need you!” yelled another, Deb Testa, who was standing behind me and who, when Trump mentioned Harris, said, “We do need to bring hanging back.”

One thing to consider about MAGA, Testa told me, was that it’s hard to tell anymore “who the real Trump train, or Vance train, supporters are,” because MAGA has become so large and diffuse. When Trump is gone, she said, “I think the Trump train will dwindle. A lot of people are in it for the hype.” The result, she said, might be a smaller, more “purified” version of the movement, and one “willing to do whatever it takes, those that remain.”

Too many people, she said, were drawn to Trump’s rallies for the “concert-like effect.”

That is, of course, one reason people come to his rallies — and it’s one reason it may be so difficult for MAGA to replace him. Outside the arena, I stopped by a large spread of tables filled with Trump hats and buttons and T-shirts and slippers and switchblades for sale.

Bill Bailey, who sells Trump merchandise at rallies across the country and keeps a warehouse full of the stock back home in Grand Haven, Michigan, was optimistic that someone could take over where Trump leaves off, possibly Vance. (“He could evolve into being as good as Trump,” Bailey said.)

But he was worried, too, about the possible alternative.

“We had the tea party. It disintegrated,” he said.

Of the MAGA movement, he said, “I’m worried it will fracture. … Not having the right leader, it could totally fall apart.” He told me he suspects, post-Trump candidacy or presidency, he’ll still sell more merchandise with Trump’s name on it than anyone else’s.

“Oh yeah, yeah,” he said. “You put the Trump name on anything, and I can sell it for you.”

For a while, at least, Trump could keep selling his movement, too. Down the path from Bailey’s booth, a group of people were on a patch of dirt watching Trump finish his rally on a large, outdoor screen. Phil and Gabrielle Corbally had brought lawn chairs.

Even after his candidacy or his presidency, Phil Corbally told me, Trump will be a leader of the party.

“Donald Trump runs the show,” he said.

His wife nodded: “He runs the show.”

But he’s also 78 years old. Eventually he won’t be running the show. What about then? Is there anyone even close to him?

“Not that I’ve heard of,” Gabrielle Corbally said.

She sighed. “We’ve got a lot of praying to do.”

And it continues..... A pregnant teenager dies

A pregnant teenager died after trying to get care in three visits to Texas emergency rooms

By Lizzie Presser and Kavitha Surana

Candace Fails screamed for someone in the Texas hospital to help her pregnant daughter. “Do something,” she pleaded, on the morning of Oct. 29, 2023.

Nevaeh Crain was crying in pain, too weak to walk, blood staining her thighs. Feverish and vomiting the day of her baby shower, the 18-year-old had gone to two different emergency rooms within 12 hours, returning home each time worse than before.

The first hospital diagnosed her with strep throat without investigating her sharp abdominal cramps. At the second, she screened positive for sepsis, a life-threatening and fast-moving reaction to an infection, medical records show. But doctors said her six-month fetus had a heartbeat and that Crain was fine to leave.

Now on Crain’s third hospital visit, an obstetrician insisted on two ultrasounds to “confirm fetal demise,” a nurse wrote, before moving her to intensive care.

By then, more than two hours after her arrival, Crain’s blood pressure had plummeted and a nurse had noted that her lips were “blue and dusky.” Her organs began failing.

Hours later, she was dead.

Fails, who would have seen her daughter turn 20 this Friday, still cannot understand why Crain’s emergency was not treated like an emergency.

But that is what many pregnant women are now facing in states with strict abortion bans, doctors and lawyers have told ProPublica.

“Pregnant women have become essentially untouchables,” said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law and policy professor emerita at George Washington University.

Texas’s abortion ban threatens prison time for interventions that end a fetal heartbeat, whether the pregnancy is wanted or not. It includes exceptions for life-threatening conditions, but still, doctors told ProPublica that confusion and fear about the potential legal repercussions are changing the way their colleagues treat pregnant patients with complications.

In states with abortion bans, such patients are sometimes bounced between hospitals like “hot potatoes,” with health care providers reluctant to participate in treatment that could attract a prosecutor, doctors told ProPublica. In some cases, medical teams are wasting precious time debating legalities and creating documentation, preparing for the possibility that they’ll need to explain their actions to a jury and judge.

Dr. Jodi Abbott, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University School of Medicine, said patients are left wondering: “Am I being sent home because I really am OK? Or am I being sent home because they’re afraid that the solution to what’s going on with my pregnancy would be ending the pregnancy, and they’re not allowed to do that?”

There is a federal law to prevent emergency room doctors from withholding lifesaving care.

Passed nearly four decades ago, it requires emergency rooms to stabilize patients in medical crises. The Biden administration argues this mandate applies even in cases where an abortion might be necessary.

No state has done more to fight this interpretation than Texas, which has warned doctors that its abortion ban supersedes the administration’s guidance on federal law, and that they can face up to 99 years in prison for violating it.

ProPublica condensed more than 800 pages of Crain’s medical records into a four-page timeline in consultation with two maternal-fetal medicine specialists; reporters reviewed it with nine doctors, including researchers at prestigious universities, OB-GYNs who regularly handle miscarriages, and experts in emergency medicine and maternal health.

Some said the first ER missed warning signs of infection that deserved attention. All said that the doctor at the second hospital should never have sent Crain home when her signs of sepsis hadn’t improved. And when she returned for the third time, all said there was no medical reason to make her wait for two ultrasounds before taking aggressive action to save her.

“This is how these restrictions kill women,” said Dr. Dara Kass, a former regional director at the Department of Health and Human Services and an emergency room physician in New York. “It is never just one decision, it’s never just one doctor, it’s never just one nurse.”

While they were not certain from looking at the records provided that Crain’s death could have been prevented, they said it may have been possible to save both the teenager and her fetus if she had been admitted earlier for close monitoring and continuous treatment.

There was a chance Crain could have remained pregnant, they said. If she had needed an early delivery, the hospital was well-equipped to care for a baby on the edge of viability. In another scenario, if the infection had gone too far, ending the pregnancy might have been necessary to save Crain.

Doctors involved in Crain’s care did not respond to several requests for comment. The two hospitals, Baptist Hospitals of Southeast Texas and Christus Southeast Texas St. Elizabeth, declined to answer detailed lists of questions about her treatment.

Fails and Crain believed abortion was morally wrong. The teen could only support it in the context of rape or life-threatening illness, she used to tell her mother. They didn’t care whether the government banned it, just how their Christian faith guided their own actions.

When they discovered Crain was pregnant with a girl, the two talked endlessly about the little dresses they could buy, what kind of mother she would be. Crain landed on the name Lillian. Fails could not wait to meet her.

But when her daughter got sick, Fails expected that doctors had an obligation to do everything in their power to stave off a potentially deadly emergency, even if that meant losing Lillian. In her view, they were more concerned with checking the fetal heartbeat than attending to Crain.

“I know it sounds selfish, and God knows I would rather have both of them, but if I had to choose,” Fails said, “I would have chosen my daughter.”

‘I’m in a lot of pain’

Crain had just graduated from high school in her hometown of Vidor, Texas, in May of 2023 when she learned that she was pregnant.

She and her boyfriend of two years, Randall Broussard, were always hip to hip, wrestling over vapes or snuggling on the couch watching vampire movies. Crain was drawn to how gentle he was. He admired how easily she built friendships and how quickly she could make people laugh. Though they were young, they’d already imagined starting a family. Broussard, who has eight siblings, wanted many kids; Crain wanted a daughter and the kind of relationship she had with her mom. Earlier that year, Broussard had given Crain a small diamond ring — “a promise,” he told her, “that I will always love you.”

On the morning of their baby shower, Oct. 28, 2023, Crain woke with a headache. Her mom decorated the house with pink balloons and Crain laid out Halloween-themed platters. Soon, nausea set in. Crain started vomiting and was running a fever. When guests arrived, Broussard opened gifts — onesies and diapers and bows — while Crain kept closing her eyes.

Around 3 p.m., her family told her she needed to go to the hospital.

Broussard drove Crain to Baptist Hospitals of Southeast Texas. They sat in the waiting room for four hours. When Crain started vomiting, staff brought her a plastic pan. When she wasn’t retching, she lay her head in her boyfriend’s lap.

A nurse practitioner ordered a test for strep throat, which came back positive, medical records show. But in a pregnant patient, abdominal pain and vomiting should not be quickly attributed to strep, physicians told ProPublica; a doctor should have also evaluated her pregnancy.

Instead, Baptist Hospitals discharged her with a prescription for antibiotics. She was home at 9 p.m. and quickly dozed off, but within hours, she woke her mother up. “Mom, my stomach is still hurting,” she said into the dark bedroom at 3 a.m. “I’m in a lot of pain.”

Fails drove Broussard and Crain to another hospital in town, Christus Southeast Texas St. Elizabeth. Around 4:20 a.m., OB-GYN William Hawkins saw that Crain had a temperature of 102.8 and an abnormally high pulse, according to records; a nurse noted that Crain rated her abdominal pain as a seven out of 10.

Her vital signs pointed to possible sepsis, records show. It’s standard medical practice to immediately treat patients who show signs of sepsis, which can overtake and kill a person quickly, medical experts told ProPublica. These patients should be watched until their vitals improve. Through tests and scans, the goal is to find the source of the infection. If the infection was in Crain’s uterus, the fetus would likely need to be removed with a surgery.

In a room at the obstetric emergency department, a nurse wrapped a sensor belt around Crain’s belly to check the fetal heart rate. “Baby’s fine,” Broussard told Fails, who was sitting in the hallway.

After two hours of IV fluids, one dose of antibiotics, and some Tylenol, Crain’s fever didn’t go down, her pulse remained high, and the fetal heart rate was abnormally fast, medical records show. Hawkins noted that Crain had strep and a urinary tract infection, wrote up a prescription and discharged her.

Hawkins had missed infections before. Eight years earlier, the Texas Medical Board found that he had failed to diagnose appendicitis in one patient and syphilis in another. In the latter case, the board noted that his error “may have contributed to the fetal demise of one of her twins.” The board issued an order to have Hawkins’ medical practice monitored; the order was lifted two years later. (Hawkins did not respond to several attempts to reach him.)

All of the doctors who reviewed Crain’s vital signs for ProPublica said she should have been admitted. “She should have never left, never left,” said Elise Boos, an OB-GYN in Tennessee.

Kass, the New York emergency physician, put it in starker terms: When they discharged her, they were “pushing her down the path of no return.”

“It’s bullshit,” Fails said as Broussard rolled Crain out in a wheelchair; she was unable to walk on her own. Fails had expected the hospital to keep her overnight. Her daughter was breathing heavily, hunched over in pain, pale in the face. Normally talkative, the teen was quiet.

Back home, around 7 a.m., Fails tried to get her daughter comfortable as she cried and moaned. She told Fails she needed to pee, and her mother helped her into the bathroom. “Mom, come here,” she said from the toilet. Blood stained her underwear.

The blood confirmed Fails’ instinct: This was a miscarriage.

At 9 a.m, a full day after the nausea began, they were back at Christus St. Elizabeth. Crain’s lips were drained of color and she kept saying she was going to pass out. Staff started her on IV antibiotics and performed a bedside ultrasound.

Around 9:30 a.m., the OB on duty, Dr. Marcelo Totorica, couldn’t find a fetal heart rate, according to records; he told the family he was sorry for their loss.

Standard protocol when a critically ill patient experiences a miscarriage is to stabilize her and, in most cases, hurry to the operating room for delivery, medical experts said. This is especially urgent with a spreading infection. But at Christus St. Elizabeth, the OB-GYN just continued antibiotic care. A half-hour later, as nurses placed a catheter, Fails noticed her daughter’s thighs were covered in blood.

At 10 a.m., Melissa McIntosh, a labor and delivery nurse, spoke to Totorica about Crain’s condition. The teen was now having contractions. “Dr. Totorica states to not move patient,” she wrote after talking with him. “Dr. Totorica states there is a slight chance patient may need to go to ICU and he wants the bedside ultrasound to be done stat for sure before admitting to room.”

Though he had already performed an ultrasound, he was asking for a second.

The first hadn’t preserved an image of Crain’s womb in the medical record. “Bedside ultrasounds aren’t always set up to save images permanently,” said Abbott, the Boston OB-GYN.

The state’s laws banning abortion require that doctors record the absence of a fetal heartbeat before intervening with a procedure that could end a pregnancy. Exceptions for medical emergencies demand physicians document their reasoning. “Pretty consistently, people say, ‘Until we can be absolutely certain this isn’t a normal pregnancy, we can’t do anything, because it could be alleged that we were doing an abortion,’” said Dr. Tony Ogburn, an OB-GYN in San Antonio.

At 10:40 a.m, Crain’s blood pressure was dropping. Minutes later, Totorica was paging for an emergency team over the loudspeakers.

Around 11 a.m., two hours after Crain had arrived at the hospital, a second ultrasound was performed. A nurse noted: “Bedside ultrasound at this time to confirm fetal demise per Dr. Totorica’s orders.”

When doctors wheeled Crain into the ICU at 11:20 a.m., Fails stayed by her side, rubbing her head, as her daughter dipped in and out of consciousness. Crain couldn’t sign consent forms for her care because of “extreme pain,” according to the records, so Fails signed a release for “unplanned dilation and curettage” or “unplanned cesarean section.”

But the doctors quickly decided it was now too risky to operate, according to records. They suspected that she had developed a dangerous complication of sepsis known as disseminated intravascular coagulation; she was bleeding internally.

Frantic and crying, Fails locked eyes with her daughter. “You’re strong, Nevaeh,” she said. “God made us strong.”

Crain sat up in the cot. Old, black blood gushed from her nostrils and mouth.

‘The law is on their side’

Crain is one of at least two pregnant Texas women who died after doctors delayed treating miscarriages, ProPublica found.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has successfully made his state the only one in the country that isn’t required to follow the Biden administration’s efforts to ensure that emergency departments don’t turn away patients like Crain.

After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion, the administration issued guidance on how states with bans should follow the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. The federal law requires hospitals that receive funding through Medicare — which is virtually all of them — to stabilize or transfer anyone who arrives in their emergency rooms. That goes for pregnant patients, the guidance argues, even if that means violating state law and providing an abortion.

Paxton responded by filing a lawsuit in 2022, saying the federal guidance “forces hospitals and doctors to commit crimes,” and was an “attempt to use federal law to transform every emergency room in the country into a walk-in abortion clinic.”

Part of the battle has centered on who is eligible for abortion. The federal EMTALA guidelines apply when the health of the pregnant patient is in “serious jeopardy.” That’s a wider range of circumstances than the Texas abortion restriction, which only makes exceptions for a “risk of death” or “a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.”

The lawsuit worked its way through three layers of federal courts, and each time it was met by judges nominated by former President Donald Trump, whose court appointments were pivotal to overturning Roe v. Wade.

After U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, a Trump appointee, quickly sided with Texas, Paxton celebrated the triumph over “left-wing bureaucrats in Washington.”

“The decision last night proves what we knew all along,” Paxton added. “The law is on our side.”

This year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the order in a ruling authored by Kurt D. Engelhardt, another judge nominated by Trump.

The Biden administration appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the justices to make it clear that some emergency abortions are allowed.

Even amid news of preventable deaths related to abortion bans, the Supreme Court declined to do so last month.

Paxton called this “a major victory” for the state’s abortion ban.

He has also made clear that he will bring charges against physicians for performing abortions if he decides that the cases don’t fall within Texas’ narrow medical exceptions.

Last year, he sent a letter threatening to prosecute a doctor who had received court approval to provide an emergency abortion for a Dallas woman. He insisted that the doctor and her patient had not proven how, precisely, the patient’s condition threatened her life.

Many doctors say this kind of message has encouraged doctors to “punt” patients instead of treating them.

Since the abortion bans went into effect, an OB-GYN at a major hospital in San Antonio has seen an uptick in pregnant patients being sent to them from across Southern Texas, as they suffer from complications that could easily be treated close to home.

The well-resourced hospital is perceived to have more institutional support to provide abortions and miscarriage management, the doctor said. Other providers “are transferring those patients to our centers because, frankly, they don’t want to deal with them.”

After Crain died, Fails couldn’t stop thinking about how Christus Southeast Hospital had ignored her daughter’s condition. “She was bleeding,” she said. “Why didn’t they do anything to help it along instead of wait for another ultrasound to confirm the baby is dead?”

It was the medical examiner, not the doctors at the hospital, who removed Lillian from Crain’s womb. His autopsy didn’t resolve Fails’ lingering questions about what the hospitals missed and why. He called the death “natural” and attributed it to “complications of pregnancy.” He did note, however, that Crain was “repeatedly seeking medical care for a progressive illness” just before she died.

Last November, Fails reached out to medical malpractice lawyers to see about getting justice through the courts. A different legal barrier now stood in her way.

If Crain had experienced these same delays as an inpatient, Fails would have needed to establish that the hospital violated medical standards. That, she believed, she could do. But because the delays and discharges occurred in an area of the hospital classified as an emergency room, lawyers said that Texas law set a much higher burden of proof: “willful and wanton negligence.”

No lawyer has agreed to take the case.

Harris will win in a landslide!

How Donald Trump is laying the groundwork to dispute the election results – again

By Jeremy Herb

Donald Trump is re-using his 2020 playbook to baselessly claim the 2024 election is being stolen from him and is being joined by allies with big megaphones amplifying his falsehoods ahead of Election Day.

Trump has made repeated false claims that Democrats are cheating in the election, and he’s twisted isolated problems with voting leading up to Election Day, all in an effort to prime his supporters to falsely believe the election is not legitimate if he loses.

This includes saying voting by noncitizens is a widespread problem. He’s claimed there’s no verification for overseas or military ballots. He’s claimed election officials are using early voting to commit fraud. He’s claimed that massive swaths of mail-in ballots are illegitimate, even as he’s encouraged his supporters to use mail voting this time around.

Most importantly, Trump has claimed that the only way Vice President Kamala Harris can win the election is by cheating.

The claims are baseless.

“It’s unfortunate that he sees his path back to the White House as denigrating a basic American institution like elections,” said Ben Ginsberg, a CNN contributor and Republican campaign attorney who has served as general counsel for several previous GOP nominees. “If you’re just starting to pay attention to this, the claims that you’re hearing in 2024 about the election system not being reliable is extraordinarily similar to what he and his supporters were saying in 2020.”

In 2020, Trump lost a close election, and then spent two months trying to overturn the result. In 2024, with polls signaling a razor-thin election in seven battleground states, election officials are bracing for another firehose of misinformation about the result – especially if the election hinges on the results of hundreds of ballots in one or two states.

Election experts say that despite the viral and hyperbolic claims, the vast majority of voters will almost assuredly experience a swift and uneventful experience whenever they vote, whether it’s through early voting, vote-by-mail or on Election Day.

As early voting has gotten underway, many local and state officials are showing they intend to proactively knock down falsehoods about the election that spread like wildfire on social media.

Voter fraud is rare, but when it does happen, it is usually caught thanks to the layers of safeguards built into voting processes, according to nonpartisan election experts.

“It’s really useful to remind people in this time of heightened anxiety, all the way around, that they’re still in charge (to decide the election outcome),” said Justin Levitt, a CNN contributor and election law expert at Loyola Law School who served as a voting rights adviser in the Biden White House.

“There’s a ton of noise out there right now. If this election is more than a 537-vote margin in any of the swing states, none of the noise will matter,” Levitt added, referencing the margin in Florida during the disputed 2000 presidential election.

Still, that hasn’t always stopped conspiracy theories from spreading on social media – including from Elon Musk, the CEO of X, who has poured tens of millions of dollars into boosting Trump’s campaign. Election officials warn they’re outmatched and struggling to combat the wave of falsehoods coming from Musk and his platform.

An intense focus on Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania could be the state where the 2024 campaign is decided, and it’s become ground zero for both legal fights over voting rules – and the spread of misinformation.

Trump has already claimed without evidence that his opponents are cheating in the state, both on his social media and at campaign rallies. At a Tuesday rally in Allentown, Pennsylvania, Trump claimed that the discovery of hundreds of suspected fraudulent voter registration applications in Lancaster County was evidence of cheating.

Lancaster election officials and the county district attorney announced last week they received a batch of suspected fraudulent voter registration applications, which had similar handwriting, incorrect information and other problems.

But that is hardly evidence of cheating – and in fact it shows the system worked to flag the applications, thanks to the checks in place to verify voters’ personal information and signatures before any ballots are cast, said Kathy Boockvar, a former Pennsylvania secretary of state.

“All these safeguards make sure that this doesn’t impact voting,” said Boockvar, a Democrat who is now president of Athena Strategies. “What it doesn’t do is it doesn’t actually make it any more likely that there’s going to be any more improper votes, thanks to all those guardrails in place.”

Because the state’s presidential election is so contested, it’s become a tinderbox for claims of fraud to spread like wildfire.

Last month, a conservative activist claimed voter fraud on X, in a post that quickly went viral, because 53 voters were registered at the same address, a Catholic church in Erie County. But it wasn’t voter fraud at all – there are 55 nuns of the Benedictine Sisters of Erie who live there.

Pennsylvania has also been the site of furious pre-election litigation, including over the rules about what mail-in ballots can be counted and how early voting is administered. Trump’s campaign and Republicans successfully sued to have Bucks County extend on-demand mail over complaints that voters had been turned away.

Elon Musk’s misinformation machine

Election experts say that misinformation surrounding a presidential election is nothing new. But what’s changed is the volume of viral claims that they’re trying desperately to keep up with.

Musk’s 2022 acquisition of X, formerly known as Twitter, has only added fuel to the fire, as he has pushed out numerous conspiracies to his 200 million followers on the site, as well as at town halls to support Trump’s candidacy.

Social media has been used in past elections to fuel conspiracies, including by foreign actors in 2016. But X and other social media companies have pivoted away from efforts to combat falsehoods spread on their sites.

Musk’s tactics have pushed election officials to go so far as to try – unsuccessfully – to personally convince him to stop spreading baseless claims that could mislead voters.

In Michigan this past week, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson tried to push back on a claim Musk shared about registered voters in Michigan, accusing him of “spreading dangerous disinformation.” Musk responded that Benson was “blatantly lying to the public.”

Musk was latching onto claims alleging there were more ballots cast in Michigan’s early voters than there were identified voters, which the secretary of state’s office said was due to a data “formatting error” that was corrected.

While Lara Trump, the co-chair of the Republican National Committee, posted on X that her team had confirmed this issue was due to a glitch, that didn’t stop others in the conservative media ecosystem from continuing to amplify claims of fraud – refusing to back down from claims of a larger conspiracy.

CNN’s Donie O’Sullivan, after spending 24 hours consuming pro-Trump media, reported the pro-Trump outlets are telling their viewers there’s no way the former president can lose, if the election is fair.

Election officials are trying to take a more proactive approach to false claims in their states and municipalities to knock them down quickly – like a false claim in Texas of a man claiming a voting machine had switched his vote.

But that’s often an uphill battle.

“The effect of all this election mis- and dis-information is when you survey people, they don’t believe anything they read online about elections, and that’s a problem when there are really great election officials trying to get information into the hands of voters,” said Ruth Greenwood, director of the election law clinic at Harvard Law School.

Manipulating early voting numbers

In 2020, Trump attacked early voting and mail-in voting, claiming they were used to cheat. His supporters, in response, largely voted on Election Day.

This time, Trump and the RNC have made a big push to use early and mail voting, even as Trump has continued to attack them.

As of five days before Election Day, more than 61 million Americans have already cast their ballots through either mail or early in-person voting. Both Democrats and Republicans have looked for positive signs for their side based on publicly available analysis of data that states report – and partisans have made sweeping predictions from the totals.

Voting and election modeling experts say that trying to game out election results based on early voting data is not statistically sound, because there are gaps in the data and the data only describes people who vote ahead of Election Day, not who they voted for or the intentions of tens of millions who will go to the polls on Tuesday.

The questionable claims about early voting data have stoked fears that the early voting numbers will be one thing that Trump and his allies use to question the election results should Harris prevail. There are also concerns that Trump is preparing to declare victory prematurely – just as he did early in the early morning hours after Election Day in 2020, before anyone had called the race.

Trump claimed he had won because he was ahead, ignoring the fact that the in-person votes, which tended to be more Republican-leaning, had been counted ahead of mail-in ballots, which leaned more Democratic.

While Republicans have embraced mail voting this year and there’s no pandemic pushing millions to vote that way, a similar phenomenon could still happen this election.

“If the trend from recent past elections continues, if Democrats are more likely to use vote-by-mail or absentee ballots and those ballots take longer to cast, then you’re going to see results shifting from Republican candidates being ahead to Democratic candidates pulling closer to them and potentially even surpassing them,” said Michael Morley, an election law professor at Florida State University College of Law. “Not because of fraud or something underhanded or nefarious going on, but because more ballots are being counted.”

Baseless claims of rampant non-citizen voting

Trump and his Republican allies have ramped up litigation as well as their rhetoric ahead of Election Day over the threat of noncitizens voting – and Trump in particular has claimed without evidence that Democrats are trying to allow non-citizens to vote.

“Our elections are bad, and a lot of these illegal immigrants coming in, they’re trying to get them to vote,” Trump said at the September presidential debate. “They can’t even speak English. They don’t even know what country they’re in practically. And these people are trying to get them to vote.”

Republicans have sought ahead of the election to purge voter rolls of suspected noncitizens. The Supreme Court sided with Virginia Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin on Wednesday, allowing the state to continue with a program that state officials say is aimed at removing suspected noncitizens from the voter rolls.

Voting rights groups have pointed to evidence that Virginia’s voter purge effort also caught up citizens who are eligible to vote.

The Justice Department also sued Alabama this fall over the state’s effort to remove more than 3,000 names from its voter rolls, arguing it violated federal law against such an action taking place too close to an election.

Experts say illegal voting by non-citizens is extremely rare, and when it does happen, it is usually caught quickly. A recent Georgia audit of the 8.2 million people on its rolls found just 20 registered noncitizens – only nine of whom had voted.

And Michigan earlier this week charged a Chinese citizen with voter fraud and perjury after he allegedly cast a ballot for the 2024 election, which experts say shows how rare instances of illicit voting are uncovered.

The focus on noncitizen voting has led to false allegations against Americans, too. In Pennsylvania’s Allegheny County, election officials issued a statement Wednesday debunking a viral video alleging non-citizens cut the line and were allowed to vote at an early voting site. In fact, the video showed a group of registered voters who needed the assistance of translators, according to a county spokesperson.

Republican litigation has also targeted overseas ballots cast by Americans living abroad and military service members. Trump falsely claimed that Democrats were trying to cheat with overseas ballots.

“The Democrats are talking about how they’re working so hard to get millions of votes from Americans living overseas. Actually, they are getting ready to CHEAT!” he wrote on Truth Social in September.

But courts in multiple jurisdictions have rejected Republican challenges to the procedures for vetting overseas ballots and to set aside ballots for additional checks of voters’ eligibility.

Fears of another attempt to challenge the result

Since the chaos in the aftermath of the 2020 election, officials have spent the past four years preparing both for increased threats of violence and efforts to block the certification of a legitimate election result.

Election officials have been inundated with threats of violence since the 2020 election. They’ve responded in 2024 by stepping up efforts to protect polling places and their workers on Election Day, including with bulletproof glass, wearable panic buttons and open lines of communication with local law enforcement.

Last month, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security warned that “election-related grievances” could motivate domestic extremists to engage in violence before and after the November election.

Ballots and drop boxes have been targeted already. Authorities are investigating fires at ballot boxes in Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, Washington, where hundreds of ballots were destroyed or damaged.

Once all the votes are cast, election officials and experts are preparing to try to stop a repeat of the 2020 election, where Trump sought out multiple avenues to try to overturn his election loss, culminating in his supporters rioting at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Election officials and experts say they hope to avoid a repeat of 2020, where if Trump loses the election, he and his allies make baseless claims that the other side cheated and the result is illegitimate.

There have been steps taken to blunt any attempt to of a 2020 repeat: Congress, for instance, updated the Electoral Count Act, the law that governs the January 6 congressional certification of the presidential election, in an attempt to make it harder to block certification.

But Trump and his allies have been laying the groundwork to try to dispute the election should he lose.

The “Stop the Steal” movement has already reemerged before Election Day, and many of those activists have been telling their supporters that the only way Trump can lose in 2024 is through fraud.

In Georgia, conservatives sought to allow county election officials to refuse to certify the election results, though the effort was blocked by a state judge.

Another Trump ally, Maryland GOP Rep. Andy Harris, suggested last week that North Carolina’s GOP-controlled state legislature could award the state’s electoral votes to Trump before votes are even counted, arguing there was possible disenfranchisement of voters in western North Carolina due to complications from Hurricane Helene.

If Trump believes there is systemic fraud in the election, he will have the opportunity to prove it in the courts, just as he did after the 2020 election.

Ginsberg, the GOP election attorney, noted that the Republican National Committee’s plans for 200,000 poll watchers means the Trump campaign should be able to provide evidence to back up any alleged fraud claims.

“That means they ought to have hard evidence of anything that’s amiss,” he said. “And if they can’t produce hard evidence, then that should be a pretty clear indication that it once again is rhetorical smoke and not evidence.”

Just remember all that fucking stupid shit that fucker did.....

Trump says he ‘shouldn’t have left’ the White House as he closes campaign with increasingly dark message

By Gregory Krieg and Kate Sullivan

Donald Trump, who said in Pennsylvania on Sunday that he regrets leaving the White House in 2021, is ending the 2024 campaign the way he began it — dishing out a stew of violent, disparaging rhetoric and repeated warnings that he will not accept defeat if it comes.

At a rally in the must-win battleground state, the former president told supporters that he “shouldn’t have left” office after losing the 2020 election; described Democrats as “demonic”; complained about a new poll that shows him no longer leading in Iowa, a state he twice carried; and said he wouldn’t mind if a gunman aiming at him also shot through “the fake news.”

Trump spent much of his speech pushing unfounded claims of cheating by Democrats in the 2024 election and sowing doubts about its integrity as polls show him and Vice President Kamala Harris deadlocked nationally. He ranted about alleged election interference this year and lamented his departure from office after losing to Joe Biden four years ago.

“I shouldn’t have left. I mean, honestly, because we did so, we did so well,” Trump said during his rally in Lititz as he claimed the US-Mexico border was more secure under his administration.

It was a rare public admission of regret over participating in the peaceful transfer of power after he incited his supporters to violently storm the US Capitol as he tried to subvert the results of the 2020 election that he lost but refused to concede — something Trump is currently facing federal charges over.

Trump, whose voice sounded hoarse throughout his speech, repeatedly railed against the new Iowa survey released Saturday night, which showed no clear leader between him and Harris in the state.

“We got all this crap going on with the press and with fake stuff and fake polls,” Trump said, claiming the poll from the Des Moines Register and Mediacom was put out by “one of my enemies.”

The poll delivered a gut punch to those inside Trump’s orbit Saturday night, several people familiar with the reaction told CNN. The former president has been fuming privately over the numbers, arguing the highly anticipated poll should never have been released.

Trump’s advisers have sought to assure him the survey is not accurate, blasting it as way off and telling him there’s always one poll that stands out. His long-standing pollster issued a memo Saturday night arguing it was a “clear outlier.” But the gender breakdown showing that women are driving a shift toward Harris has privately concerned Trump’s allies, with a focus on the poll’s finding that women in Iowa favor Harris over him, 56% to 36%.

At another point during his Lititz rally, the former president, who has been the target of two assassination attempts, suggested he’d be OK with a gunman aiming at him also shooting through the “the fake news.”

“I have this piece of glass here. But all we have really over here is the fake news, right? And to get me, somebody would have to shoot through the fake news,” Trump said. “And I don’t mind that so much. I don’t mind.”

A Trump campaign spokesman said after the rally that the former president was actually musing about how the press was protecting him.

“President Trump was stating that the Media was in danger, in that they were protecting him and, therefore, were in great danger themselves, and should have had a glass protective shield, also. There can be no other interpretation of what was said. He was actually looking out for their welfare, far more than his own!” Steven Cheung said in a statement.

Responding to Trump’s comments Sunday, a senior Harris campaign official said in a call with reporters that “for Trump, this election really is all about his own grievances and he’s not focused on the American people.”

In his speech, Trump baselessly claimed Democrats are “fighting so hard to steal this damn thing,” and that voting machines would be tampered with.

“They spend all this money, all this money on machines, and they’re going to say, we may take an extra 12 days to determine. And what do you think happens during that 12 days? What do you think happens?” Trump said.

The crowd yelled back: “Cheating!”

“These elections have to be, they have to be decided by 9 o’clock, 10 o’clock, 11 o’clock on Tuesday night. Bunch of crooked people, these are crooked people,” Trump said.

The former president’s newest round of threats caps off a campaign with one of the darkest, most menacing closing messages in modern American history. In the last few weeks alone, Trump has doubled down on a pledge to use the military to combat the civilian “enemy within” and mused — in the guise of arguing he was the pro-peace candidate — about how former Rep. Liz Cheney, one of his loudest conservative Republican critics, would fare with guns “trained on her face” in a war zone.

This weekend has brought its own slate of bizarre moments. On Sunday, Trump told NBC News that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s recent post on X about removing fluoride from public water if Trump were to win a second term “sounds OK to me.”

“Well, I haven’t talked to him about it yet, but it sounds OK to me,” Trump told NBC. “You know, it’s possible.”

And a night earlier in North Carolina, Trump chuckled approvingly at an audience member’s suggestion that Harris worked as a prostitute. After Trump insisted yet again that Harris did not work in a McDonald’s when she was younger, a supporter in Greensboro shouted, “She worked on a corner!”

Trump laughed, paused for a beat, then declared, “This place is amazing.”

As the crowd laughed, he added: “Just remember it’s other people saying it, it’s not me.”

His response to the crude remark underscored how the rot in American political discourse, a long-running spiral, went into overdrive after Trump’s arrival on the presidential campaign trail in 2015. It’s a contrast from seven years earlier, when a supporter of John McCain said during a campaign event that Barack Obama was lying about his identity, claiming, “He’s an Arab,” and the then-GOP nominee took the microphone from her hands, insisting his rival was “a decent family man (and) citizen that just I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues.”

Even then, though, Trump was lurking. He would soon emerge as one of the leading proponents of the “birther” conspiracy theory, a racist narrative that said Obama was not born in the US.

In the run-up to this year’s election, Trump has used the former president’s full name — Barack Hussein Obama — in an attempt to demonize him. He frequently mispronounces Harris’ first name, though he has shown before he knows the proper way to say it, and called her a “sh*t vice president.”

At other times, Trump has descended into farce. During a rally in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, last month, he spent some time recalling the late, great golfer Arnold Palmer’s naked body.

“Arnold Palmer was all man, and I say that in all due respect to women, I love women,” Trump said. “This man was strong and tough, and I refused to say it, but when he took showers with the other pros they came out of there, they said, ‘Oh, my God. That’s unbelievable.’”

Trump’s message to — and more often, about — women has also become increasingly bizarre. At a rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin, last week, he told the crowd that his aides had asked him to stop saying he would be the “protector” of American women, in part because they recognized it as inappropriate.

“‘Sir, please don’t say that,’” Trump said he was advised. “Why? I’m president. I want to protect the women of our country. Well, I’m going to do it, whether the women like it or not.”

Recent polls have shown the former president trailing Harris with female voters by a significant margin across demographic lines. Neither Trump nor his allies have pushed back on the numbers, instead imploring more men to vote.

“Early vote has been disproportionately female,” said Charlie Kirk, the leader of a right-wing group that Trump has entrusted with managing much of his ground game. “If men stay at home, Kamala is president. It’s that simple.”

Harris has mostly countered Trump’s bleak offerings with promises to bring an end to the tribal clashes that have defined most of the past decade.

“Our democracy doesn’t require us to agree on everything. That’s not the American way,” Harris said during a speech last week from the Ellipse in Washington, DC. “We like a good debate. And the fact that someone disagrees with us, does not make them ‘the enemy from within.’ They are family, neighbors, classmates, coworkers.”

“It can be easy to forget a simple truth,” she added. “It doesn’t have to be this way.”

The vice president has also zeroed in on Trump’s attacks on rivals and detractors, including a persistent insistence he wants to use the power of the federal government to punish them. By contrast, Harris likes to say, she is focused on policy, like a push to restore federal abortion rights following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

“On day one, if elected, Donald Trump would walk into that office with an enemies list,” Harris said in Washington. “When elected, I will walk in with a to-do list full of priorities on what I will get done for the American people.”

You see... It's the GOP who are the cheaters...

A Calif. property manager said he voted for Trump 6 times. He's being investigated.

The man claimed online that he used his position to fill out 4 ballots that were mailed to tenants who had moved

By Alec Regimbal

A property manager in Redding was reportedly fired over claims that he used his position to commit voter fraud by filling out ballots that were mailed to tenants who had previously moved.

On Reddit, a user with the account name “ManCow2000” replied to a post in the r/WorkAdvice subreddit and said he was a property manager. In his comment, he said that he filled out four ballots that were mailed to tenants who had moved and had yet to update their voting address.

“PS: I am a property manager. I got four mail in voting forms … people who didn’t send in a change of address I guess,” the comment said. “I voted all four of them. NO on rent control. NO on school bonds. and … Trump baby,” adding: “… I follow the Chicago rule for voting: vote early — vote often.”

The user also said he voted for former President Donald Trump with his own ballot, and filled out his wife’s ballot to vote for Trump as well, bringing his total to six votes. 

Last week, KCRC-TV — a station in Redding — reported that other Reddit users searched ManCow2000’s post and comment histories and were able to identify him as Charles Pierce of Redding. The outlet also reported that users forwarded Pierce’s claims to the FBI.

Shasta County Registrar of Voters Tom Toller told SFGATE he had been made aware of Pierce’s comments and forwarded them to the Shasta County District Attorney’s Office.

“A review of that social media posting provided sufficient detail for my staff to take the claim seriously,” he said in an email. “Election fraud of this type, voting more than one ballot, is particularly insidious because it dilutes the vote of every other registered voter in our county who votes one ballot according to the law. We referred this matter to the Shasta County District Attorney’s Office for investigation of a possible criminal violation of California Election Code section 18500.”

Shasta County District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett confirmed to KCRC that her office is investigating Pierce’s claims.

“Every election, my office receives, from the Registrar of Voters, allegations of voter fraud. We look into each, often resulting in educating those involved in the election process on the resources available to them to ensure compliance with the law,” Bridgett told the outlet. “We also, in appropriate cases, file criminal charges for violation of the elections code. The registrar of voters has referred the allegations against Charles Pierce to my office.”

Bridgett did not immediately reply to a request for updates sent by SFGATE.

On Friday, KNVN-TV reported that Pierce had told the outlet that he had been fired from his job at the Manzanita Manor Apartments in Redding over his Reddit comment. He also said he “did not engage in any illegal activities,” claiming that his post was hyperbole.

“He says the situation has been ‘blown out of proportion’ and is ‘so bogus,’” the outlet reported.

Attempts by SFGATE to reach Pierce were unsuccessful, and his Reddit account has been deleted. A voicemail left at the Manzanita Manor Apartments was not immediately returned.

If Pierce did fill out four additional ballots to vote against California Propositions 2 (school bonds) and 33 (rent control), and to vote for Trump, it would be a federal crime.

“If the investigation substantiates that election fraud did occur, a further referral will be made to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, since voting more than once is also a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1973i(3),” Toller said. “The latter is punishable by up to five years in federal prison, underlining just how serious the allegation of election fraud is.” 

Always a comparison...

Is America collapsing like ancient Rome?

Caesar, Trump, and the future of American democracy.

by Sean Illing

If you were a Roman citizen around 200 BCE, you might have assumed that Rome was going to last forever.

At the time, Rome was the greatest republic in human history and its institutions had survived several invasions and all kinds of disasters. But Rome’s foundations started to weaken less than a century later, and by 27 BCE, the republic had collapsed. It then transformed into an empire, and even though the Roman state persisted, it was no longer a representative democracy.

The fall of the Roman Republic is both complicated and straightforward: The state became too big and chaotic; the influence of money and private interests corrupted public institutions; and social and economic inequalities became so stark that citizens lost faith in the system altogether and gradually fell into the arms of tyrants and demagogues.

All of that sounds very familiar, doesn’t it?

Edward Watts is a historian at the University of California San Diego and the author of two books on ancient Rome. One, from 2018, is called Mortal Republic: How Rome Fell Into Tyranny, and the other, from 2021, is The Eternal Decline and Fall of Rome.

Mortal Republic is probably the best thing I’ve read on Rome’s history, both because it lays out what went wrong and why, and because it attempts to explain how the lessons of its decline might help save fledgling republics like the United States.

I invited Watts on The Gray Area to talk about those lessons and why he thinks the American republic is in danger of going the way of ancient Rome. As always, there’s much more in the full podcast, so listen and follow The Gray Area on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pandora, or wherever you find podcasts. New episodes drop every Monday.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Sean Illing
You told me several years ago that you thought America might be in the beginning stages of a similar decline as Rome. Where do you think we are in that process today?

Edward Watts
I was much more optimistic in 2018 than I am now. What I saw in 2018 was a set of imbalances. I saw a primal scream by the American electorate that said, “We do not like what we’ve got.” And I saw hints that we might have violence injected into our political life. I had no idea that within two years that violence would take the form that it did and it would come so close to actually destroying the political system.

I was talking to a friend from Italy a couple of weeks ago about January 6, and he was like, “Oh, yeah, it’s a blip.” And I said, “Well, let’s game this out. They came very close to actually getting in there when the representatives were present in the chamber, it was something like 15 minutes between when the representatives left and when the rioters got in. What would happen if they actually had gotten in and seized some representatives or disrupted the vote?” And my friend said, “Well, they would call in the army.” Who would call in the army? Who is actually legitimately in charge at that point? Who does the army answer to?

This was the situation Rome found itself in. Once you break a system, there are no rules governing what happens and all of the institutions that depend on that system free-float. And I think we don’t appreciate how close we came to a moment where that was our government, or our lack of government. And in Rome that happened and it was profoundly devastating, hundreds of thousands of people died because of that. It’s not something that we should play with.

Sean Illing
Both the Roman political system and our own system were designed to be slow-moving with the idea that change should happen ploddingly and deliberately. Do you think, in retrospect, that trade-off wasn’t worth it for Rome? That it was too hard and too convoluted and therefore incapable of being responsive enough to what was happening?

Edward Watts
This is where the 2,000-year lifespan of the Roman state is so important. Over and over in Roman history, there are these moments where people step back and say, “What we have is broken.” But because you have leaders and because you have a tradition of adapting, most of the time Rome doesn’t blow up all of these traditions and systems it inherited. It tries to find ways to amend them and to adapt them and to create new ways to make them more responsive to the needs of its citizens.

The empire was built initially as a kind of Italian enterprise to extract stuff from all of these other places that it controlled. But by the early part of the third century [CE], every single free person in the Roman Empire was a citizen of the Roman state. And so this model of Italians extracting things from colonial subjects was gone. You couldn’t run an empire that way anymore because you have 6 million Italians and 60 million other Roman citizens. And so the third century was a process of trying to figure out how you remake a society that was originally devoted to sending resources into Italy and make it responsive to the needs of all of those people everywhere.

Sean Illing
Would you say that adaptability, that expansion of the circle of citizenship, was the key to Rome’s survival for that long?

Edward Watts
Yeah, and I think that’s a lesson we should take away from Rome. What Rome was able to do from its very earliest point, from the point when there were Roman kings, was to identify who could contribute to its society and find ways to empower people who were initially [on the] outside.

So some of the first Roman kings actually weren’t Roman. They were chosen because they were the best people for the job. The third-to-last king, Tarquinius Priscus, wasn’t even born in Rome. He actually grew up in a city in Etruria (present-day central Italy) and moved to Rome because it was a place where you were allowed to rise as high as your talents would permit. This society wouldn’t block you because you weren’t of the right background.

This was deeply ingrained in what Roman society was, and I think that’s a lesson for us. You have to remain grounded in the things that make your country function, but you have to also acknowledge that there are people who may not have been born in a position of authority who have something to contribute. And if you’re going to make your society function in the long term, you have to find a way to bring them in, not just because it’s fair, but because they make your country better.

Sean Illing
What’s interesting about Rome is that they experienced something like 150 years of political dysfunction and a brutal civil war before they finally scrapped the republic for an empire. That’s a long period of steady decline. Do you believe America has that much time to get its political affairs in order as a country?

Edward Watts
Just in the last four years, we’ve had people try to storm Congress and two assassination attempts. It took Rome a really long time to get to the point where they were willing to do that. And the fact that we’re barely talking about those assassination attempts is stunning.

In Rome, there was a sort of creative tension that usually functioned well, but sometimes didn’t, between individuals who wanted to push change and systems that were designed to resist rapid change. In 27 BCE, Augustus figures out how to create a regime where he is the dominant figure for the rest of his life, but there are a couple of moments before that where individuals make choices that could have gone differently, but they have enough faith in the integrity of the system, and they have enough trust in the aesthetics of that system, that they do not go that far.

The moment that jumps out to me immediately is Sulla, who was a dictator. He won a civil war, he murders Roman citizens in a fashion that is totally contrary to what a Roman state is supposed to do, or what any state is supposed to do.

But Sulla fundamentally believed that a republic is important. He seized power and he occupied a position of authority as an autocrat for a couple of years and then gave the republic back because he believed that was important to do. He did not need to do that.

And I think that’s a moment where we should reflect on whether some of the people who could find themselves in a position similar to Sulla in the United States would make that same choice. Would they walk away after changing whatever they wanted to change? I don’t think so.

Sean Illing
You once told me that people like Trump pop up in an old republic every generation or so, when things reach a certain point, and either the system reboots and gets back on the tracks or it goes the other way. I’m not really asking you to weigh in on the politics here, but I am asking you, as a historian, what you make of Trump as a symptom of deeper problems in the country.

Edward Watts
This is where the tension between the system and the individual becomes so important because there are moments where republican systems are not working and an individual does seize the momentum and seize the opportunity to potentially refashion them in whatever way that person wants. They could do like Sulla or Caesar. Sulla seizes the republic, he kills a lot of people, but he turns it back, he restructures it. He believes in the republic.

Caesar also takes over the republic, and what he wants to do is create a republic that is truly a republic. Caesar, I think, deeply believed that there are certain aspects of the republican structure and of this idea of a citizen-held political community that he did not want to transgress, even if it would cost him his life. It was much more important to him to have a republic than it was to make himself safe. He made that choice knowing full well that it was a choice.

What I find alarming about Trump is I do not believe he cares whether this country is a republic or not. And so if he takes power and he has the ability to remake the state, he’s not going to remake it as a republic. He’ll remake it as whatever he decides he wants it to be, but he has no deep commitment to the idea of the republic, and that’s different from every Roman who takes power.

Sean Illing
Of the many lessons we might draw from Rome’s collapse, what do you think is really worth reflecting on in this political moment?

Edward Watts
I think the biggest point — and I’m afraid the ship has already sailed — is that violence should never be a part of politics. Once it’s there, it is very hard to make it go away without even more violence that ultimately neutralizes the people willing to do it. Violence has no part in a representative political system.

But I think the other thing that is really important for us to understand is that you cannot wait or hope that a single individual is going to fix the problems in a society or fix the problems in a political system. If you have a political system that has functioned reasonably well and has been adaptable over the course of decades or centuries, that’s a very valuable thing. It creates rules, it creates assumptions, it creates a state of play where everybody more or less knows when you do X, this is how the system is going to respond. If you destroy that, you have nothing. And if you destroy that because of an individual, you just have that individual.

Very occasionally, you will get an individual who creates something that maybe isn’t even better but is at least something. Most of the time the person who destroys does not have the capacity to create. And so you’re going to replace something that has governed just about every aspect of your civic and personal lives for your entire existence, and probably, in the United States, for the existence of 10 generations of your ancestors potentially. If you throw that away for an individual, you’re making a really significant bet. And if that individual is somebody that you don’t 100 percent trust is capable of creating something different, you are throwing away an incredibly valuable thing for nothing.

A toddler grown into a saboteur

It’s not alarmist: A second Trump term really is an extinction-level threat to democracy

Why a second Trump term is a mortal threat to democracy — though perhaps not in the way you think.

by Zack Beauchamp

In the game Jenga, players take turns removing wooden blocks from a rickety tower and then stacking them back on the top. Each removed piece makes the base more wobbly; each block put back on top makes it more unbalanced until it eventually topples.

This, I’d argue, is basically how we should be thinking about the stakes of the 2024 election for American democracy: an already-rickety tower of state would be at risk of falling in on itself entirely, with catastrophic results for those who live under its shelter.

We live in an era where democracies once considered “consolidated” — meaning so secure that that they couldn’t collapse into authoritarianism — have started to buckle and even collapse. As recently as 2010, Hungary was considered one of the post-Communist world’s great democratic success stories; today, it is now understood to be the European Union’s only autocracy.

Hungarian democracy did not die of natural causes. It was murdered by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who seized control of nearly every aspect of state power and twisted it into tools. Not just the obvious things, like Hungary’s public broadcaster and judiciary, but other areas — like its tax administration and the offices regulating higher education.

Bit by bit, piece by piece, Orbán — whose support Trump regularly touts — subtly took a democracy and replaced it with something different.

In this, he was a trailblazer, creating a blueprint of going from democracy to autocracy that has been followed, to varying degrees of success, by leaders in countries as diverse as Brazil, India, Israel, and Poland.

The central question of this election is whether voters will grant former President Donald Trump the power to resume his efforts to place the United States on this list.

A predictable crisis

Trump’s statements and policy documents like Project 2025 amount to a systematic Orbánist program for turning the government into an extension of his personal will. Their most fundamental proposal, a revival of Trump’s never-implemented Schedule F order, would permit the firing of upward of 50,000 career civil servants.

This is the kind of thing that’s easy to dismiss as so much insider Washington drama, but the stakes are sky-high: Beyond hindering the basic functions of government that millions of people depend on, politicizing the civil service is a critical step toward consolidating the power needed to build an autocracy.

Democratic collapse nowadays isn’t a matter of abolishing elections and declaring oneself dictator, but rather stealthily hollowing out a democratic system so it’s harder and harder for the opposition to win. This strategy requires full control over the state and the bureaucracy: That means having the right staff in the right places who can use their power to erode democracy’s core functions.

Trump and his team have plans to do just that. They have discussed everything from prosecuting local election administrators to using regulatory authority for “retribution” against corporations that cross him — all steps that would depend, crucially, on replacing nonpartisan civil servants who would resist such orders with loyalists.

How far Washington would travel down the Budapest road is very hard to say. It would depend on a variety of factors that are difficult to foresee, ranging from the competence of Trump’s chosen appointees to the degree of resistance he faces from the judiciary.

But even if there’s a reasonable chance that the worst case might be avoided, the danger remains serious. With specific plans for autocratization already in place, and a recent grant of criminal immunity from the Supreme Court, there’s every reason to treat a second Trump term as an extinction-level threat to American democracy.

This assault on democracy didn’t come out of nowhere. My recent book on democracy, The Reactionary Spirit, argues that rising political antagonism in America is a perennial outgrowth of its defining conflict over race and national identity — with the current round of conflict sparked largely (albeit not entirely) by backlash to Barack Obama’s 2008 victory.

The sense among some Americans that they were losing their country to something new, defined by a more diverse population and a more equal social hierarchy, made the idea of a strongman who could roll back change quite appealing to a significant chunk of the American population. These voters had come to constitute a plurality, if not an outright majority, of Republican primary voters — creating the conditions for Trump to rise.

In 2016, Trump seized on this reactionary discontent and married it to a whole-scale agenda of backlash against the current political order. His policies and political rhetoric — on everything from immigration to gender to trade to foreign policy — were calculated to deepen America’s divisions and mainstream ideas once consigned to the fringes.

As potent as this politics proved, it’s likely Trump never really expected it to take him all the way to the White House. He had done very little transition work — nothing like Project 2025 existed. His team was scrambling from the second the contest was called in their favor.

The president himself was unfamiliar with how American democracy worked and largely uninterested in learning the details. So in his first term, he haphazardly yanked at its foundations — flagrantly assailing basic democratic norms of conduct and installing an incoherent policy process that made it very difficult to rely on any expectation of neutral, stable governance.

The results? Rising tensions between citizens and declining faith in government institutions, in part because government had become legitimately less reliable. There were several near-miss crises — people forget how close we were to nuclear war with North Korea in 2017 — and then two very real ones: a botched pandemic response and a democracy-shaking riot at the Capitol.

When critics warn about Trump’s threat, the constant rejoinder is that democracy already survived four years of Trump in office. In fact, democracy did not emerge unscathed from Trump’s first term.

And, perhaps more importantly, there are many reasons to believe that a second Trump term would be far more dangerous than the first — starting with the degree of authoritarian preparation that’s already gone into it.

A toddler grown into a saboteur

If the first Trump term was akin to the random destruction of a toddler, a second would be more like the deliberate demolition of a saboteur. With the benefit of four years of governing experience and four more years of planning, Trump and his team have concluded that the problem with their first game of Jenga was that they simply did not remove enough of democracy’s blocks.

I do not think that, over the course of four more years, Trump could use these plans to successfully build a fascist state that would jail critics and install himself in power indefinitely. This is in part because of the size and complexity of the American state, and in part because that’s not really the kind of authoritarianism that works in democracies nowadays.

But over the course of those years, he could yank out so many of American democracy’s basic building blocks that the system really could be pushed to the brink of collapse.

He could quite plausibly create a political environment that tilts electoral contests (even more) in the GOP’s favor — accelerating dangerous and destabilizing partisan conflict over the very rules of the political game. He could compromise media outlets, especially government or billionaire-owned ones. He could wreck the government’s ability to perform basic tasks, ranging from managing pollution to safely storing nuclear weapons.

The damage could be immediately catastrophic in ways we saw in the first term: political violence and mass death (from war, a crank-controlled public health system, or any number of other things). But even if the very worst-case scenarios were avoided, the structural damage to the tower of American democracy could be long-lasting — undoing the complex and mutually supporting processes that work to keep democracy alive.

When government reliably and neutrally delivers core services, people tend to have more faith in all of its functions — including running fair elections. When they have more faith in elections, they tend to trust them more as a means of resolving major policy disagreements. When they trust election outcomes, they tend to grant a baseline level of legitimacy to the government that follows, making it easier for it to reliably and neutrally deliver core services. The steady house of democracy is built by the gluing together of these functions.

John Rawls, the greatest political philosopher of the 20th century, described this as a long process of trust-building that starts with a basic faith in democratic ideals. When people of all political stripes basically believe in the system, he argues, they start acting inside its rules — giving others more confidence that they too can follow the rules without being cheated.

“Gradually, as the success of political cooperation continues, citizens gain increasing trust and confidence in one another,” Rawls writes in his book Political Liberalism.

A second Trump term risks replacing Rawls’s virtuous cycle with a vicious one. As Trump degrades government, following the Orbánist playbook with at least some success, much of the public would justifiably lose their already-battered faith in the American system of government. And whether it could long survive such a disaster is anyone’s guess.

Gerrymandering case

The big stakes in the Supreme Court’s new, absurdly messy gerrymandering case

Several federal courts are fighting over Louisiana’s congressional maps.

by Ian Millhiser

The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it will hear a bizarre dispute between two different federal courts about how to fix Louisiana’s racially gerrymandered congressional maps. Under existing law, one of these courts was clearly correct and the other clearly erred. But this Supreme Court is often hostile to voting rights plaintiffs, so there is some risk that the justices could change the law, permitting more racial gerrymanders.

The Court will consider this dispute in a pair of consolidated cases, known as Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais.

In June 2022, Chief Judge Shelly Dick, an Obama appointee to a federal court in Louisiana, determined that state’s congressional maps were an illegal racial gerrymander. Under the invalid maps, Black voters made up a majority in only one of the state’s six congressional districts, despite the fact that Black people comprise about a third of Louisiana’s population.

Dick ruled that “the appropriate remedy in this context is a remedial congressional redistricting plan that includes an additional majority-Black congressional district” — meaning that Louisiana must draw a new map that includes at least two Black-majority districts. Dick’s case is known as Robinson v. Ardoin, and Dick is a judge of the US District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.

A ton of litigation followed Dick’s decision, including a brief trip to the Supreme Court, but Louisiana’s attempts to appeal Dick’s ruling ultimately failed. After the Fifth Circuit, the federal appeals court that oversees Louisiana, rejected an attempt to toss out Dick’s ruling, the state decided to give up the fight and comply with her order. The state legislature passed a new map that includes two Black-majority districts.

But then an entirely different federal trial court, the Western District of Louisiana, decided to insert itself into this dispute. A new set of plaintiffs filed a suit in the Western District claiming that the new maps are unconstitutional. This case, which was known as Callais v. Landry while it was before the trial court, was assigned to a three-judge panel. Two of those judges — the ones appointed by former President Donald Trump — agreed with these new plaintiffs that the state’s new maps are unconstitutional.

Louisiana, in other words, is now subject to two competing court orders. The first, from Judge Dick, forbids it from using the old maps. The second, from the two Trump judges in the Western District, forbids the state from using the new maps it enacted to comply with Dick’s order.

The Supreme Court ruled last May that the state could use its new maps during the 2024 election, so that temporarily delayed resolution of this fight. But the long-term situation is obviously untenable. Louisiana needs to be able to draw congressional maps of some kind. And it needs to know what the rules are governing how it must draw those maps.

That’s not possible so long as two entirely separate courts, each of which apparently have wildly divergent views about how to resolve racial gerrymandering disputes, are allowed to issue competing court orders.

So what does the law actually say about racial gerrymandering in Louisiana?

Under existing law — including the Roberts Supreme Court’s recent decision in Allen v. Milligan (2023) — Dick is clearly correct, and the two Trump judges are clearly wrong, about what should happen with Louisiana’s maps. Among other things, Milligan involved a nearly identical racial gerrymandering dispute from Alabama, and the Supreme Court ordered Alabama to draw a second Black congressional district in that case.

But this Supreme Court, with its 6-3 Republican supermajority, is frequently hostile to voting rights claims — and it is especially hostile to claims brought under the Voting Rights Act, the law that Dick relied on in her decision. So, while the right outcome in Callais is clear under existing law, there’s always a risk that this Court will abandon that law.

In Milligan, Alabama effectively asked the Supreme Court to abandon the legal framework governing racial gerrymandering cases brought under the Voting Rights Act, which the Court first announced in Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), and replace it with a new test that would render the act’s safeguards against racial gerrymandering toothless.

In a 5-4 decision, the Court rejected Alabama’s request, holding instead that a lower court decision striking down Alabama’s racially gerrymandered maps “faithfully applied our precedents.” The Gingles framework, which the Court reaffirmed in Milligan, is complex. But it primarily required the Milligan plaintiffs to show that it was possible to draw two geographically “compact” Black-majority districts in Alabama, and that Black and white voters in the state tend to vote in separate blocs.

The Ardoin case — the one heard by Judge Dick — is similar in all relevant respects to Milligan. Louisiana’s lawyers previously told the Supreme Court that Ardoin “presents the same question” as the one decided in Milligan. In its ruling against Louisiana, the Fifth Circuit concluded that “most of the arguments the State made here were addressed and rejected by the Supreme Court in Milligan.”

So that really should have been the end of this dispute. Advocates who wanted the Court to abandon Gingles and legalize the kind of racial gerrymanders that were initially drawn by the Alabama and Louisiana state legislatures brought their case to the justices, and a majority of the justices rejected those arguments in 2023. That likely explains why, after Louisiana lost its appeal to the Fifth Circuit, it decided to give up this fight and voluntarily draw new maps.

So how on Earth did the Western District wind up getting involved?

To understand how a second federal court wound up invalidating the very maps that Louisiana enacted to comply with Judge Dick’s order, it’s important to understand a bit of tension that has long existed in federal voting rights law.

The 14th Amendment generally prohibits race discrimination of all kinds. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has held that this amendment forbids states from using “race as the predominant factor in drawing district lines unless it has a compelling reason.” At the same time, the Voting Rights Act sometimes requires states to draw a minimal number of legislative districts where a racial minority group is in the majority. This principle has been reaffirmed in many cases, including Gingles and Milligan.

Tension arises between these two principles because, if a state knows that it must draw at least two congressional districts with a Black majority, it can’t really accomplish that task without taking account of race. To resolve this tension, the Court held in Cooper v. Harris (2017) that a state may engage in “race-based districting” when it has “a strong basis in evidence” for concluding that it must do so to comply with the Voting Rights Act.

Under Cooper, a VRA-compliant map is lawful if the state “had ‘good reasons’ to think that it would transgress the Act if it did not draw race-based district lines.”

So, under Cooper, the Western District had no business striking down Louisiana’s new map. Louisiana clearly had “good reasons” to think that it must draw a new map with two Black-majority districts because a federal court ordered it to draw a new map with two Black-majority districts, and the state’s attempts to appeal that decision were unsuccessful.

To avoid this conclusion, the two Trump judges responsible for the Callais decision largely rely on a line in Milligan which states that the Voting Rights Act “never require[s] adoption of districts that violate traditional redistricting principles.” They argue that the new maps, which were also drawn to protect several Republican incumbents, violate the traditional principle that legislative districts should be compact.

But that’s a pretty strained reading of Milligan. While the Supreme Court did hold that the VRA doesn’t require states to draw ugly districts, it also said in the very same paragraph that redistricting “is primarily the duty and responsibility of the States, not the federal courts.” So Millligan does not forbid states from drawing ugly, misshapen districts so long as those districts otherwise comply with the Voting Rights Act.

It’s worth noting that Callais falls within the Supreme Court’s mandatory jurisdiction, meaning that the justices are required to hear this case, or at least to issue an order resolving it. So the mere fact that the justices will hear what should be a very easy voting rights case does not mean that they intend to upend decades worth of law.

Still, while the legal principles that should govern in Callais are crystal clear, it is always worrisome whenever this unpredictable Court takes up a Voting Rights Act case of any kind. In Milligan, the Court surprised most Supreme Court-watchers when it voted to leave longstanding safeguards against racial gerrymandering in place. We’ll find out soon if all five justices in the Milligan majority actually meant what they said in that case.