JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES
Latest Jobs Posts
Should Trump Be Given Classified Foreign Intelligence Briefings As A Candidate?
Brief #221 – Civil Rights Policy Brief
by Rodney A. Maggay
Amidst former President Trump’s legal battles over mishandling classified documents, questions arise over his eligibility to receive classified foreign intelligence briefings as a 2024 election candidate. With bipartisan concerns and differing expert opinions, debates ensue regarding the potential national security implications of such briefings.
The Week That Was: Global News in Review
Brief #127 – Foreign Policy Brief
by: Abran C
Global News Recap: Haiti declares emergency amid rising violence with gangs releasing inmates as PM Henry seeks aid. Iran’s low-turnout elections lead to conservative win amidst economic and political struggles, and more.
Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Ruling in Trump Ballot Case
Brief #220 – Civil Rights Policy Brief
by Rodney A. Maggay
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court addressed the Trump ballot case, affirming that states cannot remove Donald Trump from the ballot for the 2024 presidential election, despite allegations of inciting the January 6th insurrection. The Court highlighted the requirement for congressional legislation to apply Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, raising queries about presidential eligibility clauses.
Youth Movements and Their Impact on The Political Landscape
Brief #158 – Social Justice Policy Brief
by: Inijah Quadri
From climate change advocacy to social justice campaigns, young activists are leveraging digital tools to drive policy changes and challenge traditional power structures. Explore the dynamic impact of these movements and their growing influence on elections and policy debates.
The Aftermath of Alabama’s Supreme Court Ruling on IVF
Policy Brief #171 – Health and Gender
by Devyne Byrd
Alabama’s Supreme Court ruling, declaring frozen embryos as extrauterine children under state law, sends shockwaves across the nation in the wake of the Dobbs decision. The decision prompts immediate action from Alabama lawmakers to protect IVF practices amidst bipartisan concern over its implications, highlighting the ongoing debate over reproductive rights as a pivotal issue in the upcoming 2024 election.
Echoes of Suffering: A Cry for Ceasefire from Gaza’s Heart
Brief #126 – Foreign Policy Brief
by: Aziza Taslaq
Within the chaos of relentless bombardments and displacement, Gazans like Samah plead urgently for a cease-fire, their lives shattered by the ongoing conflict. Their plea highlights the urgent need to end the cycle of suffering and work towards a future of peace and justice.
A Christian Perspective on the War in Gaza: Seeking Peace Amidst Suffering
Brief #125 – Foreign Policy Brief
by: Aziza Taslaq
Amid the turmoil of the Gaza conflict, Tom, a Christian in the USA, emphasizes empathy and peace, distancing individuals from broader political tensions. Despite feeling overwhelmed by the devastation and media coverage, Tom advocates for compassion, highlighting the human toll and the importance of ceasefire for reconciliation and hope.
Political Bipartisanship Needs to be Rescued
OP ED
by: U.S. Resist News
Amidst the deepening chasm of political polarization, the call to rescue political bipartisanship echoes urgently. Exploring the causes and proposed solutions, this article navigates the turbulent waters of contemporary American politics with an aim to revive cooperation and restore faith in democratic governance.
The Politics of Passion, Courtesy of The Ink
SPECIAL GUEST OP ED
by: Anand Giridharadas
In an era defined by Big Feelings and societal upheaval, Anand Giridharadas delves into the dichotomy between the politics of passion embraced by the right and the cerebral approach adopted by today’s electoral left. As millions grapple with anxiety, fear, and existential questions, Giridharadas warns against dismissing the power of emotion and passion in political discourse, highlighting its potential to address the deep-seated uncertainties of our time.
Why Former President Trump’s Presidential Immunity Arguments Should Be Rejected
Why Former President Trump’s Presidential Immunity Arguments Should Be Rejected
Civil Rights Policy Brief #217 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | January 12, 2024
Photo taken from: www.ny1.com
__________________________________
Policy Summary: Presidential immunity in the United States is a legal doctrine that provides a defense for former and current presidents from certain legal claims. While the doctrine is not mentioned in the text of the U.S. Constitution or any federal statute, it has been recognized by United States Supreme Court case law, although in a rather incomplete fashion.
In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court decided U.S. v. Fitzgerald. This case established that a former President is absolutely immune from a civil action for damages regarding conduct within the “outer perimeter of their duties.” The dissent, however, mentioned that they would not have allowed absolute immunity but immunity only for certain specified acts of the President. In 1997 the court decided Clinton v. Jones. That court ruled that there is no presidential immunity defense in a criminal case against a president for acts that occurred prior to when he took office. These cases establish the immunity doctrine but apply only to certain civil actions and to incidents occurring before the person became president. No court has ever ruled on acts occurring during a presidential term in a state or federal criminal case against a current or former President.
Former President Donald Trump in 2023 was charged in four separate criminal cases. He is also a party in a civil defamation lawsuit filed against him by E. Jean Carroll. The former President has raised the presidential immunity defense in his defamation case, which was ultimately rejected. In the federal election subversion case against him, Trump raised the defense, which was rejected by the trial judge. That case was subsequently appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals which held a hearing on the immunity issue on January 9th, 2024. And in the Georgia election subversion case, former President Trump invoked the presidential immunity case in filings made with the court to have the case dismissed. Rulings in the cases and on whether the immunity defense will be allowed have not been issued in either election subversion case so far.
Policy Analysis: What is the defense of presidential immunity and why is it so important in Trump’s criminal cases?
The rationale for the doctrine of presidential immunity is that if a person performing duties in his official capacity, such as a President of the United States, had to consistently deal and respond to a barrage of civil lawsuits then the official might be hesitant in exercising his duties for fear of injuring one individual. The official’s duties are designed for him or her to act in the public interest and the best interests of the community and the defense is designed to permit unfettered official action without fear of individual retribution.
But while that rationale protects a president from a suit for civil damages, the cases against Trump are criminal cases and are for incidents he took while he was currently holding the office of President. What it boils down to is whether a president can and should be held accountable for criminal conduct. Because of his actions surrounding the 2020 presidential election it is clear that Mr. Trump engaged in actions to subvert the results of the national election in Georgia and a number of other states. In the Georgia state election subversion case, Mr. Trump is accused of trying to pressure Georgia officials of manipulating the results of the vote tally in the state to favor him. And in the federal election subversion case, Mr. Trump is accused of inciting an insurrection in order to prevent Congress from certifying the election win for Joe Biden and preventing the peaceful transfer of power. These acts are prohibited by federal and Georgia state law and would have resulted in criminal charges and the potential for imprisonment for any ordinary person engaging in those acts.
Yet Trump’s arguments for why he should be afforded the defense of presidential immunity is dangerous because it threatens to make a president not accountable to the laws of the United States. In Trump’s federal election case before Judge Tanya Chutkan, the Judge denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the case because she said, “…that position [as President] does not confer a lifelong ‘get out of jail free’ pass” and she is correct. Because if Trump were to succeed in his argument, there would conceivably be no situation where Trump would be held criminally liable for any acts he takes in the future. He would simply be given a free hand to do what he wants and whatever he pleases even if his conduct and actions were prohibited by law. And he would probably be emboldened to do more knowing that there would be no consequences to him personally. This is not what was intended by the presidential immunity defense. No man or woman is above the law and the consequences that go along with violating the law. Former President Trump should not be afforded the presidential immunity defense in order to demonstrate that the laws apply equally to everyone. The courts should keep this in mind when they finally craft their rulings in the Trump criminal cases. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- Politico – interactive map tracking former President Trump’s four criminal cases with updates.
- Protect Democracy – non – profit group’s info page on presidential immunity with some history on the issue.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact rodwood@email.com.
Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you.
Abortion Restrictions Continue as Women Stockpile Medication
Abortion Restrictions Continue as Women Stockpile Medication
Health and Gender Policy Brief #169 | By: Geoffrey Small | January 11, 2024
Photo taken from: www.plannedparenthood.org
__________________________________
A newly published JAMA Internal Medicine research letter has indicated that women are stockpiling abortion pills in the United States. With recent state developments in restricting access to abortion procedures, women across the U.S. are feeling the impact of their waning reproductive rights by taking precautions that were unimaginable in the Roe v. Wade era. As studies are being published measuring the fallout of the Supreme Court’s reversal, a moderate pro-abortion ballot proposal in Arkansas is gaining a lot of criticism in a state that has a total abortion ban. In Texas, the appellate court and their Supreme Court has ruled that hospitals can ban certain emergency abortion procedures, as shown in Kate Cox’s renown court battle. These restrictive measures may lead to a new norm where rates of stockpiling abortion medication and access inequality may grow.
Policy Analysis
On January 2nd, The JAMA network published a research letter that indicated women were stockpiling mifepristone and misoprostol. The data was measured through a European online telemedicine service called Aid Access. The letter states that from September 2021 to April 2023, 48,400 requests from the U.S. were made for “advance provision”, a category for women who are currently not pregnant. In states where abortion bans were administered, these particular requests increased ninefold. Socio-economic and racial inequities to accessibility were also indicated in the letter. There was a greater proportion of requests from white unmarried women, at least 30 years old, who live in urban areas that had less overall poverty. On January 3rd, the FDA finalized a rule change that would allow mail-order abortion pills to be ordered within the United States.
Women are taking more precautionary measures as the nation debates state restrictions. The Arkansas Advocate reported in November that a ballot proposal, submitted by the nonprofit For AR People, would require an amendment to Arkansas’ total abortion ban. This proposal came after the non-profit’s internal polling indicated that 51 percent of Arkansas citizens supported limited reproductive rights. If the state votes in favor of the ballot, Arkansas will codify abortions through 18 weeks of pregnancy and in cases of rape, incest, or a life-threatening pregnancy. However, some online advocates argue that the 18-week ban would still enshrine a more restrictive constitutional measure when compared to the 24-week Roe v. Wade timeline. Many advocates also agree that the 24-week timeline is arbitrary and support complete unrestricted access.
The Texas Supreme Court reversed a ruling in December that would have allowed Kate Cox to receive an abortion that was diagnosed with a lethal abnormality. This forced her to leave the state to terminate her non-viable pregnancy.
Also, on January 2nd, the federal court of appeals in Texas ruled that hospitals cannot be required to perform emergency abortions, in order to stabilize a patient’s life, after federal guidance from the Biden Administration stated the procedures are necessary in hospitals receiving Medicare. The federal court ruled that the Biden Administration overstepped its authority, because the requirement ran counter to state laws.
The Supreme Court is set to rule on the FDA approval of access to abortion medication this summer. The future of reproductive rights is still uncertain even for mifepristone, a drug that was approved 20 years ago by the FDA. If anyone needs access to this federally sanctioned medication, please visit Aid Access in the link below.
Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you.
Links
Fadi’s Story: The Challenges to Palestinian Identity
Fadi’s Story: The Challenges to Palestinian Identity
Foreign Policy Brief #113 | By: Aziza Taslaq | January 9, 2024
Featured Photo taken from: www.foreignpolicy.com
__________________________________
Fadi’s roots trace back to the village of Tetaba, situated near Safad in Palestine. However, his grandparents were compelled to relocate to Lebanon in 1948 as a consequence of the displacement caused by Israeli forces seizing their homes and lands. This historical event, known as the Nakba, led to Fadi’s family obtaining travel documents as they became part of the Palestinian diaspora. Based on the Geneva Convention, the travel document aimed to protect civilians during armed conflicts and facilitate the rights of Palestinian refugees, including international travel and access to various services.
Born in one of the Gulf countries, Fadi faced challenges early on. Until the year 2000, he couldn’t enter most Gulf countries due to his lack of a Palestinian ID. The Palestinian ID, issued by the Palestinian Authority, is a crucial identification card for residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. To obtain it, individuals must contact the Palestinian Ministry of Interior or local authorities, submit required documents like proof of residency and birth certificates, and follow the specific process outlined by the authorities. The Palestinian ID, issued by the Palestinian Authority, serves as a local identification and proof of residency for residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. On the other hand, the Palestinian Travel Document, also issued by the Palestinian Authority, is used as a substitute for a passport, enabling international travel for Palestinians who do not hold a national passport or ID, such as refugees. This limitation extended to Fadi’s professional life as local companies showed a preference for native residents, creating hurdles for Fadi and other Palestinians in similar situations.
Love knows no borders. Fadi met his future wife online while he was living in the Gulf, and she was living in Jordan. Despite the physical distance, their relationship deepened through virtual interactions. Driven by a strong connection, he made the heartfelt decision to travel to Jordan to formally engage her, bridging the gap between their two locations and taking their relationship to the next level. Attempting to unite post-marriage in the Gulf proved futile as Fadi’s request for his fiancée’s relocation was denied due to his possession of a travel document instead of a valid Palestinian ID. Consequently, Fadi chose to move to Jordan, and the couple built a life together, facing additional challenges due to his identity status.
In Jordan, Fadi encountered obstacles in his pursuit of a career as he lacked identity documentation. The struggles extended to his daughters when their mother’s attempt to secure Jordanian residency for them was denied, linking their status to their father’s. The only two possible scenarios for them to acquire residency were either through divorce or the father’s death. This situation significantly complicated Fadi’s family life.
In an attempt to find a resolution, Fadi journeyed to Bahrain in 2016 to secure a Palestinian passport from the Palestinian Embassy, valid for five years. Despite his endeavors, challenges persisted. Upon the passport’s expiration, a visit to the Palestinian Embassy in Jordan only deepened his frustration. He learned that possessing solely a Palestinian Passport is insufficient for entry into Palestine, even for tourism; a Palestinian ID is also required. This raises inquiries about the rationale behind these restrictions.
Currently engaged in remote work as a sales representative, Fadi utilizes his sales and communication expertise. He encounters persistent challenges due to global conflicts impacting his company. While appreciative of the international support for the Palestinian cause, he underscores the complexities with official identification documents and governmental institutions. Fadi emphasizes his inability to either return to or visit Palestine, expressing frustration with the dire circumstances in Gaza.
Fadi’s close ties to the ongoing conflict in Palestine are evident through his wife’s aunts, who are married to Palestinians, and his friends residing in the West Bank. These personal connections underscore the extensive impact of the war. The economic hardships and travel constraints imposed have resulted in the separation of families, highlighting the broader implications of the persistent conflicts in the region.
Despite residing outside Palestine, Fadi’s awareness of the internal conditions and political dynamics has grown. He remains critical of Zionism, emphasizing the denial of basic rights to Palestinians while Israelis enjoy dual passports and the ability to reside in various countries. Fadi’s story sheds light on the resilience and determination of Palestinians facing identity challenges and calls for global recognition of their rights and a just resolution to the ongoing conflicts in the region.
Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you.
Is Russia’s President Putin Afraid of Alexei Navalny?
Is Russia’s President Putin Afraid of Alexei Navalny?
Foreign Policy Brief #112 | By: Yelena Korshunov | January 8, 2024
Featured Photo taken from: www.prospectmagazine.co.uk – Illustration by Chris Tilbury; images © Michał Siergiejevicz
__________________________________
Alexei Navalny is one of the leaders of the Russian opposition and a leading opponent of Russia’s president Vladimir Putin. Navalny gained initial fame for his investigations into corruption in Russia. The biggest exploration published by Navalny in 2021 was a lavish Black Sea property he claimed is owned by Putin. The investigation with an accompanying two-hour YouTube video claimed the property cost $1.35 billion and was paid for “with the largest bribe in history.” The report alleges that the property, located along Russia’s southern Black Sea coast, is 39 times the size of Monaco and features a casino inside an 11-mile mansion, along with an ice rink and vineyards.
Alexei Navalny is of Russian and Ukrainian descent. He grew up in a city named Obninsk, located about 62 miles southwest of Moscow. When the USSR has collapsed, his parents became the basket-weaving factory owners. Being a child Alexei spent summertime with his grandmother in Ukraine. Navalny developed his career as a lawyer, businessmen, and politician. He graduated from the People’s Frienship University of Russia with a degree in law and then studied finance at the Financial University of the Goverement of Russian Federation. Later Navalny received a scholarship for the 6-month Yale World Fellows program at Yale.
After an attempted poisoning by a chemical warfare agent from the Novichok group and subsequent treatment in Germany, Navalny returned to Russia on January 17, 2021. Novichok is a family of nerve agents some of which are binary chemical weapons. The agents were developed at the state chemical research institute by the former Soviet Union and Russia between 1971 and 1993. Navalny accused Putin of being responsible for his poisoning.
Right after landidng at the Moscow’s airport, Navalny was immediately arrested on a number of charges, including creating an “extremist community.” The same month he was thrown into correctional colony #2 in the city of Pokrov.
However, on the eve of the presidential elections in Russia in March, 2024, since December 6, 2023, Navalny had not been connected via video link at court hearings, and his lawyers and associates had not been informed where he was. The oppositionist last appeared at a court hearing via video link on November 28. After that, at all meetings, the correctional facility didn’t connect the politician to video conferencing. According to his representatives, the colony officials explained this by saying that there had been an “accident” and there was no electricity.
Navalny’s disappearance was preceded by the arrest of three lawyers who at different times represented his interests: Igor Sergunin, Vadim Kobzev and Alexei Liptser. In October, they were taken into custody on charges of participation in an “extremist community.”
In Navalny’s last publication on his website https://navalny.com, dated December 7, he calls Russians to vote against Vladimir Putin: “Presidential elections will take place on March 17, 2024. On this day, we encourage everyone to come to the polling stations and vote against Vladimir Putin. This can be done by checking the boxes for any other candidate.”
“Use the 100 days before the vote to campaign against Putin and his power’, Navalny encourages. “Without a doubt, we are in for a parody of the electoral procedure. And the final results will, as usual, be falsified. But any election, even the most fraudulent one, is a time of doubt. People think about who is in power and why he is there. The main task of the Russian opposition, the task of all honest citizens, is to answer these doubts with all their might. Putin will harm Russia. He must go. Putin views these elections as a referendum on approval of his actions. Referendum on approval of the war.”
On December 25, it finally became known where Alexei Navalny is located. He was transferred to correctional colony IK- 3 “Polar Wolf” in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Region above the Arctic Circle. The colony to which Navalny was moved has a very bad reputation. Until that moment, there had been no contact with the opposition politician for 19 days. “We found Alexei Navalny,” the politician’s press secretary, Kira Yarmysh, wrote on her X (formerly Twitter) account. “He is located in IK-3 in the village of Kharp, Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Region. The lawyer saw him today. Alexey is fine.”
On December 26, Navalny’s associates published his first letter after being transferred, “I am your new Ded Moroz [Grandpa Frost, Russia’s analog to Santa Claus]. So what? I have a sheepskin coat, a hat with earflaps, soon they will give me felt boots, and within 20 days of the transfer I have grown a beard. True, there are no deer, but there are huge, fluffy, very beautiful shepherd dogs… The 20 days of the transfer were quite tiring, but I was still in a great mood, as befits Ded Moroz.” With these words Aleksei Navalny tries to cheer up his supporters and desperate family, but the real conditions of the colony he is in are awful. The next brief will give the reader a tour into its walls.
- Aleksei Navalny and his family. Photo from navalny.com
- Aleksei Navalny under arrest. Photo from dzen.ru
Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you.
Reinventing Policing: The Road to Police Reform in the United States
Reinventing Policing: The Road to Police Reform in the United States
Social Justice Policy Brief #153 | By: Inijah Quadri | January 8, 2024
Photo taken from: https://www.americanprogress.org
__________________________________
In the United States, the urgent need for police reform has been brought into sharp focus following high-profile incidents involving police use of force. The tragic deaths of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and countless others at the hands of law enforcement have sparked nationwide protests and a deep reevaluation of policing practices. Central to this debate are issues such as the use of excessive force, racial profiling, insufficient accountability, and the increasing militarization of the police.
Analysis
The current U.S. policing model is frequently critiqued for its aggressive tactics and apparent racial biases. A comprehensive report by NBC Post highlighted a disturbing trend: Black Americans, constituting less than 13% of the U.S. population, are disproportionately killed by the police—quite a lot more than all other groups in the USA. This statistic, among others, emphasizes the urgency of systemic change.
Reform initiatives often involve overhauling training programs, emphasizing de-escalation and crisis intervention. An example is the innovative guidelines introduced by the Police Executive Research Forum, which train officers to de-escalate confrontations and prevent shootings. States have been active in reforming use-of-force policies and increasing accountability. For instance, several have limited the use of neck restraints and established clearer standards and training for use of force. These guidelines emphasize the importance of communication, time, and distance in managing volatile situations.
Accountability is another critical aspect of policing reform. The implementation of body cameras has been proposed as a key measure for ensuring transparency and accountability. A landmark study by the University of Cambridge found that body cameras led to a staggering 93% reduction in public complaints against police officers. These devices not only provide real-time evidence, enhancing transparency in contentious incidents but also promote better behavior from both the police and the public. By recording interactions, body cameras serve as a tool for evidence collection, facilitating fair investigations and decision-making.
The concept of community policing has likewise gained significant traction, emphasizing a more interactive engagement between officers and the communities they serve. For example, the Camden, New Jersey police department’s overhaul, with a focus on community policing, has shown promising results in crime reduction and building trust.
However, these reforms face challenges, including resistance from police unions and the deeply entrenched nature of current practices. Nonetheless, effective changes are needed, and this requires a multifaceted approach, encompassing legislative action, community involvement, and internal changes within police departments. Legislative action is needed to standardize training, implement body cameras, and enforce accountability measures. Community involvement is crucial for rebuilding trust and ensuring policies meet local needs. The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, proposed in Congress, exemplifies a comprehensive federal effort to address these systemic issues, encompassing training, transparency, and accountability. The Act proposes police reforms including bans on chokeholds, mandates on the use of body cameras, and the establishment of a national police misconduct registry to improve transparency. While it has faced challenges in Congress, its components have influenced state and local policies.
Further Insights and Comparative Analysis
- Historical Context: Understanding the evolution of policing in the U.S., from its early inception to its current form, is crucial. Historical analyses suggest that many current practices have roots in past social and political dynamics (i.e., slavery and colonialism), which have disproportionately affected minority communities.
- International Models: Examining international policing models, such as those in the UK or Scandinavian countries, where community-based policing has been successful, can offer valuable lessons for the U.S.
- Case Studies: Newark, New Jersey’s police department transformation, underlined by a significant decrease in use of force incidents, presents a model for successful reform.
Engagement Resources
- Campaign Zero (campaignzero.org): Provides data-driven policy solutions to end police violence in America.
- National Police Accountability Project (nlg-npap.org): Dedicated to ending law enforcement abuse through litigation and public education.
- ACLU Policing (aclu.org): Advocates for a fair and effective law enforcement system.
- Center for Policing Equity (policingequity.org): Produces analyses identifying and reducing the causes of racial disparities in policing.
- Law Enforcement Action Partnership (lawenforcementactionpartnership.org): Advocates for effective and just law enforcement policies.
For a comprehensive look at how states are expanding their role in regulating law enforcement use of force and other reforms, see the National Conference of State Legislatures report: Law Enforcement Legislation | Significant Trends 2022
Check out usrenewnews.org/policereform for more coverage on this subject. Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you.
AI and the Dumbing Down of Education
AI and the Dumbing Down of Education
Education Policy Brief #88 | By: Rudolph Lurz | January 4, 2023
Photo taken from: www.linkedin.com
__________________________________
In many ways, 2023 was the year of AI. ChatGPT is ubiquitous in boardrooms and classrooms alike. Its usage is prevalent across grade levels and industries. AI bots have passed law school and MBA examinations, along with the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE).
Chatbots are replacing customer service phone operators. They’re also available, and customizable, on apps such as Snapchat. In short, AI bots can provide full essays for students along with restaurant recommendations for celebrating that one-click B+ afterwards. The technology is progressing faster than school districts’ capacity to keep up with it. Many districts are placing bans on ChatGPT, although proving AI usage remains a challenge. In a recommendation to the G20 titled, “Reconsidering Education Policy in the Era of Generative AI”, the authors note, “While tools to detect whether content is created by AI are being developed and deployed, their effectiveness varies and the sophistication of means and mechanisms to get around them will continue to evolve in parallel.”
AI usage represents one of the rare areas where political party affiliation does not necessarily reflect where policy actors stand on the issue. Some Democrats and Republicans are alarmed by it. Others believe it represents a chance for economic growth and job creation.
Democratic U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal noted that deep-fake, AI-generated voice recordings could have harmful effects on society and geopolitics alike. Many GOP policy makers are worried that AI is apparently too woke and that ChatGPT itself has anti-conservative bias. Entrepreneur Elon Musk noted that AI represents a civilizational risk. Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie accused primary candidate Vivek Ramaswamy of amateurism, noting at a recent debate, “I’ve had enough already tonight of a guy who sounds like ChatGPT.”
Despite the fact that AI usage is considered plagiarism, AI sites like Magic School also exist for educators.
Therefore, within one year of AI’s widespread usage, teachers can design quizzes, assignments, and even full curriculum maps using AI assistance, and students can then complete them using ChatGPT.
In all of this heavily formulaic and repetitive AI-generated drivel, is learning even taking place? Is teaching?
One of the most frequent refrains in the GOP’s culture war is that teachers should “stick to teaching” and avoid “indoctrination”.
In that regard, AI provides the perfect answer for the GOP’s goals. GOP policy actors have frequently advocated for less rigid standards for education licensure, noting that veterans and business representatives should be allowed to teach in the classroom. There’s a severe teacher shortage nationwide, and positions are difficult to fill.
AI provides potential standardization of the curriculum, shovel-ready lessons and assessments for novice educators to implement, and potentially an end to critical thinking and all of the sensitive topics associated with it. Some GOP policy makers might claim to dislike AI, but it provides the inevitable conclusion of their culture wars on education: a vanilla, just-the-facts curriculum that avoids any contentious topics that make students uncomfortable.
If you’re a conservative GOP policy actor, what’s not to like?
ANALYSIS
I am an educator at a good private school. I teach English and a DE Communication course, which allows students to earn college credit at a nearby university. I frequently catch students using ChatGPT and other AI bots to complete assignments. AI detectors like GPT Zero are only a first line of defense. They will analyze a document and provide a likelihood that the document was generated by AI.
I tell my students that AI has a distinct, pedantic “accent” that is repetitive and needlessly verbose, but also uses perfect punctuation and grammar. If I suspect AI usage, I run it through an AI detector. I also have ChatGPT myself, and run my assignment prompts through ChatGPT to see what comes out. If a student submits work that is identical to what ChatGPT has produced for me, and the document shows up as 90%+ AI generated using an AI scanner, I have enough evidence to go to administration to refer the student for an academic honesty conference.
Perhaps the simplest tool I use to prove AI usage is the humble document history button on Google Docs. It shows each change the student made to the document, right down to individual backspace keystrokes. If there is only one edit made and 1000 words appear at once, it is likely that the document was copied and pasted. Students can claim that they did not use ChatGPT when they are sitting across from the Academic Dean. It is harder to claim that they wrote 1000 words with perfect grammar and punctuation in one single edit on their assignment.
With each of these academic honesty discussions with my supportive administrative team, we approach it as a teachable moment for first-time plagiarism incidents. 20% of college students do not consider AI usage as cheating. It is important to show clearly the line between using ChatGPT as a tool and abusing it as a 24/7 version of George McFly from Back to the Future to complete assignments using digital “handwriting” that looks like their own.
As an educator, I see AI’s potential and wish I had it during my doctoral program. Not to write anything for me, naturally. On my own writing website, I am highly critical of ChatGPT’s style and ability level as a writer. ChatGPT will also “hallucinate” when it does not know the answer to something, since it is programmed to speak confidently about any topic. If it does not know the details of an answer, it will make them up. Maybe that is why it is so bad at basic mathematics.
That said, I think ChatGPT is really useful as a source mining tool.
My wife is a surgical oncologist. I sat across the table from her when she was working on a pancreatic cancer presentation. I asked ChatGPT to provide the best treatment options for female pancreatic cancer patients under the age of 50. It provided a mix of pedantic, basic, and just plain useless information, along with some recommendations that stretched the truth, all without documentation or sources. My wife got a good laugh from Dr. ChatGPT. Then I asked it to provide a list of academic journal articles from reputable sources that discussed pancreatic cancer incidence in female patients under the age of 50.
My wife stopped laughing. In seconds, ChatGPT completes one of the most annoying parts of the academic research process-paring good information from garbage on the Internet. I show my students how to use ChatGPT to find good sources, but then stress that they must read the sources themselves.
In short, effective usage of AI in the classroom is more about coding than copy/paste. As the common adage goes, garbage in, garbage out.
The problem that I see coming is that education is going to start looking like the garbage out portion of that phrase. GOP policy actors who are so concerned about so-called “woke” indoctrination will use AI to create the most vanilla and non-controversial curriculum possible. Donald Trump Jr. and other GOP critics frequently use the term “Orwellian” in their criticism of “woke leftists”. I fear that these same GOP policy actors who incorrectly invoke fears of 1984 will create an education system that looks a lot like the world of Fahrenheit-451, and that AI will help build it.
Captain Beatty is Guy Montag’s boss in Fahrenheit-451. Early in the novel, he defends the education system in this dystopian society, in which critical thought is banned and trivial facts are memorized and regurgitated by students instead.
Beatty states,
“You must understand that our civilization is so vast that we can’t have our minorities upset and stirred. Ask yourself, What do we want in this country, above all? People want to be happy, isn’t that right? That’s all we live for, isn’t it? For pleasure, for titillation? Colored people don’t like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don’t feel good about Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Burn it. Someone’s written a book on tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigarette people are weeping? Burn the book. Serenity, Montag. Peace, Montag. Take your fight outside. Better yet, into the incinerator. Funerals are unhappy and pagan? Eliminate them, too…Let’s not quibble over individuals with memoriams. Forget them. Burn all, burn everything. Fire is bright and fire is clean” (pp. 59-60).
Fahrenheit-451 uses firemen to burn books in the homes of dissidents, but in most cases, the firemen are not necessary. Adult citizens have their reality TV programs that provide mindless entertainment, after learning and reciting mindless information during their schooling. There’s no need for critical thinking. Just turn on the TV.
I am honestly more concerned about AI sites for educators than ChatGPT for students.
If AI writes the curriculum and students use AI to find the answers, we have no need to fear 1984. We will enter the world of Fahrenheit-451.
No so-called “woke” material will be discussed, and no firemen will be necessary. Students will not have to experience the pain of thinking about things which might trouble them. Donald Trump Jr., Ron DeSantis, and other Republican culture warriors will be happy.
I do not see the “civilizational threat” from AI that Elon Musk sees. I see us undoing the work of centuries of education and philosophy, all in the name of convenience.
AI is unlikely to destroy us. But if it is placed in the hands of conservative policy makers, it will make us all a little more stupid.
__________________________________
Further Reading
- Magic School Website (AI for Educators): https://www.magicschool.ai/
- White House Executive Order on AI: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/10/30/executive-order-on-the-safe-secure-and-trustworthy-development-and-use-of-artificial-intelligence/
Check out usrenewnews.org/education for more coverage on this subject. Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you.
Updates on the Israel-Hamas War
Updates on the Israel-Hamas War
Foreign Policy Brief #111 | By: Abran C | January 4, 2024
Photo taken from: www.ndtv.com
__________________________________
Situation in Gaza:
Nearly three months have passed since the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas militants that killed 1,200 people with over 200 more taken hostage and led to an Israeli bombing campaign in the Gaza strip that has killed 22,000 people and further divided the world. Among Gaza’s population of 2.2 million people, more than 1.7 million have been displaced by the conflict. The aid that has entered Gaza so far has not been adequate for the amount of food, water, fuel, life-saving medicines and supplies, sanitation and shelter needed by the besieged population. About 70% of homes in Gaza have been destroyed leaving almost the entire strip’s population without shelter to return to.
Many fear a push of Palestinians out of Gaza as the death toll continues to rise and top Israeli officials make claims for the removal of civilians. Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a far-right ultranationalist, said in recent days that Israel “should take steps to encourage immigration of the majority of Palestinians in Gaza to Europe”. National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gavir commented that Israel “could not withdraw from any territory we are in in the Gaza Strip. Not only do I not rule out Jewish settlement there, I believe it is also an important thing”. The US State Department has called the comments made by the Israeli officials “ inflammatory and irresponsible”.
Earlier this week, Israel said it was withdrawing two brigades from Gaza, with three more brigades to be pulled out at a future date. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant has rejected suggestions that the pullout of some troops is part of a wider plan to end the military campaign in the strip.
South Africa files a genocide case against Israel:
South Africa has launched a case at the United Nations’ top court alleging that Israel’s military campaign in Gaza amounts to genocide. South Africa’s claim is that the magnitude of death and the extent of the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip meets the threshold of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Israel will now appear before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to contest South Africa’s accusation that it is committing genocide against Palestinians in its war with Hamas. For decades, South Africa has backed the Palestinian cause for recognition and statehood. The country has often likened the treatment of Palestinians to that of the Black population in South Africa during the apartheid era.
South Africa argues that the court has jurisdiction in both countries because both are signatories of the genocide convention and the convention’s ninth article states that disputes between nations over the convention can be submitted to the International Court of Justice. There are currently two other genocide cases are on the court’s docket. The first is a case filed by Ukraine shortly after Russia’s invasion which accuses Russia of planning acts of genocide in Ukraine. The other ongoing case involves Gambia accusing Myanmar of genocide against the Rohingya minority.
Hamas leader killed in Beirut:
Deputy Hamas chief Saleh al-Arouri was killed on Tuesday night in what is believed to be an Israeli drone strike, but not claimed, on Beirut’s southern area of Dahiyeh. The strike marks the first targeted attack inside Lebanon since 2006. This would not be the first Israeli strikes to have hit Lebanon in recent months. Arouri was a key figure in the Qassam Brigades, Hamas’s armed wing, and a close ally of Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas leader. He was positioned in Lebanon acting as an intermediary for Hamas and Hezbollah.
Israel and Hezbollah have been exchanging near-daily fire since the Oct. 7 attack, but the violence has mostly been limited to the border region between Lebanon and Israel. Israeli air strikes and shelling is reported to have killed more than 100 Hezbollah fighters and dozens of Lebanese civilians since then, including children, the elderly and several journalists. Human rights groups and local officials have also accused Israel of hitting Lebanese border areas with shells containing white phosphorus. Israel has insisted the assassination of the Hamas leader in Beirut was not an attack on Lebanon, however international law dictates that such incursions without consent into a sovereign state’s territories to be illegal. Hasan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, has made first public statements since the airstrike and said that the killing Arouri would “not go unpunished”.
Houthi’s attacks on ships in the Red Sea and US forms coalition:
The attacks on ships in the Red Sea by Yemen’s Houthi rebels have rerouted a majority of global trade away from the waterway . Oil, natural gas, grain and everything from toys to electronics typically travel through the waterway separating Africa and the Arabian Peninsula en route to the Suez Canal, where 15% of the world’s trade and 40% of Europe-Asia trade passes. It is the shortest shipping route between Europe and Asia. Companies have had to divert ships to sail around Africa, adding billions of dollars in cost because of the extended journey. The Houthis say the seizing of ships headed for Israel is a response to Israel’s assault on the Gaza Strip and will only end once a permanent ceasefire is put into place.
The US in turn announced a plan to assemble a multinational naval coalition to safeguard Red Sea shipping called Operation Prosperity Guardian. US Secretary of Defense Loyd Austin said on Tuesday that Greece and Australia had also joined the coalition, taking it to a total of 20, but at least eight countries taking part have declined to be publicly named. On December 31, 2023, US attack helicopters repelled an attack by the Houthis on a Maersk (MAERSKb.CO) container vessel sinking three of their ships and killing 10 fighters. In response to the sinking of the Houthi ships Iran has dispatched a naval frigate to the Red Sea. The US-led coalition against the Houthis, Iran dispatching its warships, and Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon and Syria present to us a very clear indication that the conflict is spreading rapidly and multiple states are getting involved in one manner or another.
Pushback to Netanyahu’s rule
Israel’s Supreme Court on Monday struck down a government plan to limit the powers of the judiciary, a move that is likely to revive tensions and division in the country as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wages war in Gaza. In Israel, a majority of the population believes Netanyahu’s government is at least partially to blame for the events of October 7. A poll conducted by researchers at Bar Ilan University asked Israelis about trust in information and decision making regarding the war in Gaza. Results show that under 4% of Israelis support Netanyahu.
Check out usrenewnews.org/israel-hamas for more coverage, differing views and analysis of this conflict. Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you.
The Week That Was: Global News in Review
The Week That Was: Global News in Review
Foreign Policy Brief #110 | By: Abran C | January 3, 2024
Photo taken from: www.seattletimes.com
__________________________________
Earthquake in Japan
A powerful earthquake hit Japan on New Year’s Day killing at least 55 people, with rescue teams still struggling in freezing temperatures to reach coastal areas where many are believed to remain trapped under thousands of destroyed homes. Japanese officials warned people to stay away from damaged homes because of the risk of continued strong quakes. Japan’s military dispatched 1,000 soldiers to the disaster zones to join rescue efforts.
The Japan Meteorological Agency issued a tsunami warning for the affected areas and lower-level tsunami warnings and advisories for the rest of the western coast of Japan’s main island of Honshu. Although casualty numbers have slowly continued to climb, the prompt public warnings and the quick response from the general public and officials appears to have limited some of the damage and saved lives as people were prepared because the area had been hit by quakes in recent years. The meteorological agency has warned that still more major quakes are likely to hit the area over the next few days.
Ethiopia-Somaliland deal
Somalia has promised to defend its territory by “any legal means” and recalled its ambassador to Ethiopia after Addis Ababa struck a deal with the breakaway region of Somaliland. The deal would give Ethiopia its long sought access to the sea through Somali territory and give Somaliland recognition by a powerful neighboring state. Somalia has called the deal a clear violation of its sovereignty and appealed to the international community for assistance.
Somaliland has been seeking full statehood since claiming independence from Somalia in 1991. The Somaliland independence movement is fiercely opposed by Mogadishu and not recognised internationally. Ethiopia, which today is the most populous landlocked country with no access to the sea, was cut off from the coast after Eritrea seceded and declared independence in 1993 after a three-decade war. Ethiopia’s economy in turn has been constrained by its lack of access to the Red Sea, a narrow strip of water between Africa and the Arabian peninsula. A hindrance it has now tried to overcome through inflaming tensions with a neighboring state.
Argentina’s shock-economic reforms
Argentina’s newly elected far-right President Javier Milei has sent his planned reform bill to Congress proposing far reaching changes for the country. A large number of sectors would be affected if the bill passes, from the country’s tax system, electoral laws and public debt management. The bill contains articles that range from allowing the privatization of 41 public companies, to eliminating the presidential primary vote and introducing a 15% tax on most exports. Among the more controversial reforms, is a call to cede some legislative powers to the presidency until Dec. 31, 2025, with the option to extend these for a further two years.
Among other coming changes to the country’s economic future, under the new Milei administration Argentina formally announced last week that it would not accept the invitation to join the BRICS bloc of developing economies. Argentina was among six countries invited last August to join the bloc made up of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa to bring the group to an 11-nation economic bloc. Former center-left president Alberto Fernandez, endorsed joining the alliance as an opportunity to reach wider markets as the BRICS countries currently account for about 40% of the world’s population and more than a quarter of the world’s GDP.
Check out usrenewnews.org/globalnews for more Global News coverage. Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you.
How Colorado and Maine Decisions Bolster The Efforts To Bar Trump From The 2024 Primary Ballots
How Colorado and Maine Decisions Bolster The Efforts To Bar Trump From The 2024 Primary Ballots
Civil Rights Policy Brief #216 | By: Rodney A. Maggay | January 2, 2024
Photo taken from: www.cnn.com
__________________________________
Policy Summary: Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
“No person shall … hold any office, civil or military, under the United States … who, having previously taken an oath … as an officer of the United States … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
In the last year, a number of efforts in multiple states have started to try and use the text of this clause to disqualify former President Donald Trump from appearing on the Republican primary ballot of the state for the 2024 Republican nomination for President of the United States. The efforts have been mixed. Initially in some states, petitions were created to ask Secretaries of States to keep Trump off the primary ballots. However, when some of these officials declined to take such a momentous step without more legal clarity, many of these citizens and non – profit groups took their efforts to the courts. All told, including petitions and court cases still pending, there are a total of thirteen states that could decide this particular issue.
In Florida, a case was filed seeking to disqualify Trump. However, the case was eventually dismissed on procedural grounds with the federal district court reasoning that a citizen in Florida did not have standing to bring the case. In Minnesota, another case was filed to disqualify Trump although the case never addressed whether Trump had actively incited a rebellion or insurrection as mentioned in the text of Section 3. The court simply reasoned that Minnesota law permitted political parties to place whomever they choose on the state’s primary ballot. And in Michigan, a petition was brought to disqualify Trump there that eventually became a lawsuit in the Michigan Court of Claims. The case was dismissed. Appeals were made to the Michigan Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court and both affirmed the trial court’s dismissal, allowing Trump to appear on Michigan’s primary ballot. All of these cases denied Trump’s disqualification for a variety of reasons.
But in two states, Colorado and Maine, activists achieved their first victories in seeking to bar the former President under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. A lawsuit was filed in Colorado and a trial was held in the case. The trial court found that Trump engaged in insurrection on January 6th, 2021 but reasoned he should still remain on the primary ballot. The case was then appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, which affirmed that Trump had engaged in insurrection. The high court then went further and in a 4 – 3 decision stated that Trump was ineligible to be on the Colorado 2024 primary ballot because of his actions on January 6th.
In Maine, three registered voters challenged Trump’s eligibility to be on the ballot as they are permitted to do under Maine law. That then triggered a process requiring the Secretary of State to hold a public hearing, hear evidence and issue a ruling on the matter. After hearing the evidence provided at the public hearing Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows issued her ruling disqualifying Trump from the Maine primary ballot. In her ruling Sec. Bellows found it easy to conclude that Trump engaged in insurrection on January 6th and that his action were “intended to incite lawless action” in order to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Policy Analysis: The two decisions from the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine Department of the Secretary of State are significant decisions that could have far – reaching consequences for the 2024 election. After a string of legal defeats in other states where some cases were decided on procedural grounds or where some justices were hesitant to address the topic head – on the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine Department of the Secretary of State got it right on a number of issues that activists had sought.
The Colorado Supreme Court made six key findings that could be focused on in other states where Trump’s eligibility is still to be decided. In its decision, the court found 1] Colorado state law permits voters “standing” to challenge Trump’s eligibility (contrary to the case in Florida that sought to bar Trump from the primary ballot there), 2] Colorado can enforce a ban on a candidate without approval from Congress, 3] the insurrectionist ban applies to presidential candidates, 4] the January 6th, 2021 attack was an insurrection, 5] former President Trump engaged in the insurrection and 6] Trump’s January 6th 2021 speech inciting the rioters was not protected speech under the First Amendment. And in the Maine decision in Sections D – 3 and 4, Sec. Bellows lays out the factual evidence that demonstrate that the actions of January 6th 2001 was an insurrection and that Trump engaged in it while refuting Trump’s arguments that he was not involved.
All of these findings are key because any uncertainty about these key facts could have been the basis to defeat the challenges to Trump’s eligibility and allow him to remain on primary ballots. Much of the discussion about Trump’s eligibility have been slanted depending on whether one supports or opposes Trump and that has often led to head – scratching conclusions. Right wing media has tried to characterize the January 6th attack as nothing more than a minor shouting match in order to avoid admitting what it really was – a violent attack to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power that resulted in death. By finding it really was an insurrection the Colorado Supreme Court can deny a key argument put forth by right wing media. Their finding also applies to whether Trump engaged in insurrection. Many pro – Trump supporters have tried to deny that Trump instigated the chaos at the Capitol that day. But the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine Secretary of State’s ruling shows that this line of argument is false and disinformation used for nothing more than to protect a president who could not in good faith admit that he lost an election.
The other findings are important because it addresses presidential eligibility issues that have not been decided by any other court of law so far. Some legal scholars have opined that presidential eligibility must be decided by Congress and not the individual states. Additionally, some have even theorized that the insurrectionist ban from Section 3 does not apply to presidential candidates. And, Trump’s January 6th speech should be protected free speech. What the Colorado Supreme Court and the Maine Secretary of State decisions shows is that there are good and strong legal arguments to apply Trump’s actions to the text of Section 3 and bar him from 2024 primary ballots. Without these key findings made by the Colorado Supreme Court and Sec. Bellows, other states could simply decline to address the issue in their own states or even determine falsely that Trump was not responsible for some of the actions he is being accused of. Colorado and Maine have taken the first step toward accountability for a former President who refuses to be held accountable for trying to destabilize the democratic process, a crime that Section 3 was specifically written to prevent against.
It is the rule of law that is paramount in this country and both Colorado and Maine have demonstrated for all other states and the courts (even the Supreme Court where an appeal is likely) that an in – depth analysis of Trump’s actions shows that Section 3 can be applied to him to bar him from the ballot. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE
Engagement Resources
- LawFare – map tracker of 14th Amendment Trump disqualification efforts and results.
- Vox – good informational website on the 14th Amendment disqualification efforts and the legal arguments for and against a ban on Trump’s 2024 candidacy.
- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) – press release from non – profit group involved in the Colorado lawsuit.
This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact rodwood@email.com.
Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you.
A Wave of Congressional Departures on the Eve of a Highly Contested Election
A Wave of Congressional Departures on the Eve of a Highly Contested Election
Elections & Politics Policy Brief #115 | By: William Bourque | December 28, 2023
Photo taken from: www.democracydocket.com
__________________________________
In the turmoil of the past year, a historic number of Members of Congress have decided to leave their posts at the end of their terms. Many are seeking election to other offices, but the majority are simply retiring from the body. A lack of bipartisanship and overall sense that Congress just doesn’t get enough done is what is pushing many long-serving lawmakers out the door. One, of course, has already left the ranks, with Rep. George Santos (NY-03) being expelled in late November. Many of the members that are stepping down wielded significant power and authority in both chambers, and it will be incredibly interesting to see who fills that hole.
In the House, where far more members are taking flight, a vacuum on the right has opened up. The biggest absence is former speaker Kevin McCarthy, who will be leaving his post at the end of the year. House GOP sources said that McCarthy was unbearable as a rank-and-file member, clearly frustrated with having to sit and hold the same power as those who pushed him out of his speakership. McCarthy’s seat should be a safe Republican one, so he isn’t leaving his party in a crucial district. The ceding of power to the far right didn’t sit well with many other senior members, like interim speaker and Kevin McCarthy ally Patrick McHenry. McHenry was also the chair of the House Financial Services Committee, where he was one of the leaders in crypto regulation. He leaves behind a 20-year tenure in the House where he was, at one point, seen as a possible candidate for Speaker.
On the Democratic side, several Californian’s are vacating their seats to run for Senator—Adam Schiff, Barbara Lee, and Katie Porter are all vying for the Democratic nomination. Polls currently have Schiff with a slight lead over Porter, with Lee trailing both significantly. Also leaving the body from California is Representative Anna Eshoo, who is retiring after serving for 30 years. Her seat is considered a safe D seat and an open primary will take place in March to determine who will be running for the seat in November.
There are also a few members who are leaving to pursue municipal or statewide offices, with some notable ones being Abigail Spanberger (D-VA-7), Mike Braun (R-IN), and Jeff Jackson (D-NC-14). Spanberger, 44, is running for Governor in Virginia. She is running against Richmond Mayor LeVar Stoney for the Democratic nomination. Stoney has faced recent criticism in Richmond after a proposed casino, backed by Stoney, failed for the second time at the ballot box. Mike Braun, in Indiana, is facing off against Jennifer McCormick, a former state superintendent. Polls from August indicate Braun should win by double-digits. Jackson, a one-term lawmaker who rose to beltway fame via TikTok videos, was gerrymandered out of his district, prompting him to attempt a return to the statehouse as Attorney General. He faces several strong challenges in one of our races to watch next fall.
Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18) left office to run for Mayor of Houston, but has since filed for re-election following a loss. Jackson-Lee is known amongst House staffers for being an unforgiving and abrasive boss, often under fire for berating staff for no reason at all. She will likely be re-elected given the Texas gerrymander, but don’t be surprised to see a primary challenge. Also in Texas, Representative Allred is leaving his seat to run for Senate, challenging Sen. Rafael “Ted” Cruz. This race is likely to be closer than anticipated, as Cruz’s popularity in Texas has waned since he left the state for Cancun in the midst of disaster. Ken Buck, a freedom caucus member from Colorado, is also leaving, citing the inability of the body to make key decisions. Buck’s district will be a safe red seat in 2024.
This number of individuals leaving elected office to make headway in other offices or retire altogether is relatively unheard of. Many say that they are sick of the lack of legislation passed—while many in Republican circles say the infighting is what has driven them out. When Patrick McHenry and Kevin McCarthy first entered Congress, the Republican party was a much different party than we see today. Of course, McCarthy’s pride is what is really hurt here—no matter how much he categorically denies it. For others, the pursuit of higher office makes sense—the three Californian’s are all looking to cement their own legacies by capturing a Senate seat. But some are getting out of politics altogether, rare in a town where people grasp for power at every chance. As we enter the new year, look our for new faces emerging in key districts—as Democrats look to retake the House in what is due to be one of the most fearsome elections of all-time.
Get the latest updates from our reporters by subscribing to the U.S. Resist Democracy Weekly Newsletter, and please consider contributing to Keeping Democracy Alive by donating today! We depend on support from readers like you.