I have scanned thru the Mathews Memo regarding the Army's reaction to the pleas for help from Capitol Building authorities. It sure reads to me that many of the delaying Army authorities who had the ability to launch a swift defense of our capitol were purposely delaying the response. My paranoia of situations like this leads me to believe there were several in the position to act who were very pro-Trump and wanted the attack to succeed.
This makes me very concerned of their loyalties to our Constitution and the Oaths they took to become members of our nation's protecting force!
I believe there needs to be a Congressional and DOJ investigation of those actions!
Regarding 1/6, it seem that all we need to know about who directed the attack and who refused to send help is that Trump was not evacuated from the WH and/or DC to a remote, secure location.
Charlie. My man. I love ya. I almost always agree with you when you criticize the Democrats for bad messaging. But I have to push back on the issue of allowing non-citizens to vote in New York. A little tough love for my conservative friends, to paraphrase a certain someone. 😏
The thing I hate most about this issue is that you may well be right about the messaging. Maybe it is too close to "DEMS WANT ILLEGALS TO VOTE FOR PRESIDENT!!!" to avoid having it warped by bad-faith partisans. But that would be a real shame.
Because we aren't talking about illegals. We're talking about legal residents - people with green cards, work permits, student visas, etc. These are people who typically reside here legally for a period of several years (say, for much of the term of a typical elected official), pay taxes, and when they leave may very well be replaced by someone similar to them with similar interests. And I know from listening to your Friday podcast that you're aware of this.
Also, (again, I know you're aware of this) we're talking about them voting in *local* elections. The ones most relevant to people's daily lives. Not federal, not even state elections. You claimed these positions are "indistinguishable". Yet I'm fairly confident most Americans fully understand the difference between state and local government. (Local government is the one they don't care about anymore, even though they know it exists.)
I know how easy it is to be cynical about the average American's capacity for nuance. But we're just plain giving up on it entirely if even folks like you don't want to give an issue the fair hearing it deserves.
A lot of people hear the term "non-citizens" and assume that it's a euphemism for "illegal immigrants" (which makes for a great argument against euphemistic language, but I digress). I even catch myself doing it. In fact, when I first heard about this issue in DC a couple of years ago, I was incredulous at first - until I realized they were talking about legal non-citizen residents and local elections. Then it suddenly seemed far more reasonable.
I think a lot of people would react the same way if those points were emphasized up front. The political ad practically writes itself - "Shouldn't immigrants who love America, follow the rules, and pay their taxes get to vote for dog catcher?"
But when your initial reaction to this is "WTF Democrats?!?" - even if you're reacting purely to the political messaging and timing rather than the substance of the policy - it will be natural for many to assume the worst possible interpretation. Why would reasonable ol' Charlie be getting so upset otherwise?
So please consider revisiting this with a more measured tone. We all know there are people who will distort this issue for political gain - don't inadvertently give them an assist.
Sometimes appears that "if it bleeds it leads" media attitude affects even the most well meaning sources. This issue could have been framed in a lot more positive way - explaining why the NYC policy is neither novel nor stupid - but still acknowledging Democrats will need to counter the inevitable false reporting by alt Right.
This is exactly right. NYC leaders should be making decisions based on what's best for their city, not whether Ted Cruz will post some disingenuous meme. Cuz guess what? HE'S GOING TO DO THAT ANYWAY.
Okay, I can't stand Stacey Abrams who, like Trump, spreads the lie of a stolen election, without any credible evidence. But how in the world can former Senator Perdue say with a straight face that Abrams controls Georgia's election system?
I don't have much tolerance for any pearl clutchers gasping at the idea that noncitizens have a say in how the schools they send their children to are run. I'm more than happy to hear what my law abiding neighbors have to say about local issues because I actually believe in local control (I would draw the line at offices that impact foreign policy because noncitizens can be presumed to have loyalty to another country). Evidently, Charlie does not. He offers no problems with this, perhaps because there are none, other than that it is "woke" and a political loser. As if the only thing I care about is winning elections. I suppose we should stand for liberalism UNLESS it's more politically expedient to stand with the bigots /s. Say hi to the anti-antis for me.
Like everyone on Bulwark+, I'm a politically homeless mishmash of left and right views, so being a political loser is not new to me, though at least I'm not a political loser of Charlie's calibre. But it's never a loss as long as you actually get the policy. After all, Tucker Carlson will always find something else to complain about,.
Two quick comments about today's Shots. First, it would be nice if Democrats recognized that Hispanic is not a race but an ethnicity and that a majority of Hispanics likely identify as being White. (Bonus if they recognized how religious most Black and Hispanics are, compared to their Woke White brethren). Second, NYC allowing noncitizens to vote is not only politically tone deaf but also amusing since the current NYC Board of Elections is a certified sh!tshow. If you cannot run good elections for your current voting population, complicating it by adding a whole new class of voters--who can only vote in some elections--is a recipe for disaster.
NYC allowing non-citizens to vote is only tone deaf if you have no understanding of nuance or the actual details--which, of course, is the vast majority of the US electorate. I have been in situations where I paid taxes to a locale merely because I happened to work there (but did not live there)--so isn't that taxation w/o representation? DIdn't we fight a revolution over that? I have vague memories of that from school.
No historian, legal scholar, or scholar of any type here. But as to executive privilege, I don't think it's mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Isn't it pretty much a made-up thing, an idea and practice promulgated from the Eisenhower era and not codified into actual law? And while it may be a now long-practiced rule and "norm", and an often practical and useful one, since DFn'T and his cadre of Rule & Norm Busters were all about slaughtering a whole herd of more or less sacred cows, perhaps it's time for some serious exsanguination on this particular one. And what better place to apply the blade than in the shop of the Head Butcher himself? All this EP BS is as appalling as nearly everything else you covered in Morning Shots today.
Btw...Can't say as I care for some of Liz Cheney's politics. But props to her for parkin' her backside in that seat on the Jan. 06 Committee, sitting up ramrod straight and speaking the truth without so much as a blink. All day, every day. She certainly has earned my respect and gratitude for that.
Had DFn'T had balls as big as hers while his sorry ass was seated in the Oval Office with his slimy little mitts directly on the levers of power, things would have turned out much differently. Lucky for us he is, in actuality, that thing he said he was so fond of grabbing. Problem is, too many of the a-holes surrounding him are not. And we need more people like Cheney to kick 'em all right in the nuts. And to keep on kickin' until they can't even crawl, much less walk upright.
While we're cleaning house on useless norms, let's get rid of this "no indicting a sitting President" baloney. These were policies drafted by political appointees to protect their bosses.
Not to mention, people have argued that we can't prosecute Trump for what he did in office because the cost of losing an election shouldn't be going to jail. That's a good argument! A perfect one, in fact, for subjecting sitting Presidents to the law just like everyone else. Especially when removing them from office, regardless of the method, is a political exercise, not a legal one.
If, at least in theory, no one is "above" the law (oh that it was so!), why should someone get a 4-to-8-year time out from it, along with a ticking clock on statute of limitations for a criminal act committed prior to said time out? Might not ever put the fear of God into a sitting president, but a little bit of fear of being prosecuted for a crime might be a good thing. Obviously, we can in no way depend on Congress to solve the problem of a criminal continuing to hold the highest office in the land.
I remember when the possibility of Trump being prosecuted for obstruction of justice was being tossed around (before we realized Mueller had no intention of doing any such thing from the beginning). The statute of limitations - five years. How convenient!
So the doctrine of not prosecuting a sitting President not only creates a criminal penalty for losing re-election, but potentially allows for complete criminal amnesty as a reward for winning re-election.
And at least with Nixon, people had every reason to believe that Congress was fully capable of removing a crook from office (Nixon certainly believed it enough to resign in discrace). Since that's obviously no longer true, and amending the Constitution is sadly all but impossible, I'd say a policy update is in order.
In order and way past due. But the window on that opportunity is closing fast, if not already closed. Midterms are a stone's throw away, and if (when) R's reclaim Congress, that window will be slammed shut, locked and barred. But much, much more importantly, ditto the chance to shore up Fed election system process, which will be the front on which the next assault on our democracy / republic will certainly occur (Electoral College issues.)
I've never been an R or a D for a number of reasons. And until 2016 had often voted a split ticket, again for a number of reasons. As to my current attitude toward the R's, if Jesus Christ were running for Dog Catcher, he couldn't even buy my vote with a Certificate of Salvation notarized by God.
As to the D's, with a clarion call to action on election issues sounding all around them, the Squad and the Moderates (all 2 of them) spent their time pissin' on each other's shoes over $$$$. And so many of the rest have been too damned busy fighting the Culture War to notice a real war is in full swing, being fought with realpolitik on the other side, the practical concern for the other side being their lust for power and their willingness to go all in to get it and then permanently retain it.
The D's habit of bringing a butter knife to a gunfight is bad enough, but this time it's a full-on artillery assault, and, by the look of it, their response will end up being just as lame and ineffectual as always. And time's quickly running out, even if they do by some miracle wake up and get their heads out of the shade of their intestinal tracts.
But if the day comes that our Republic is stained with yellow fruit tint, I probably won't be as angry at the R's for having cast the dye as with the D's for having failed to prevent it when they had the opportunity. After all, the R's have become ever increasingly honest about who and what they are now, firing their shots in broad open daylight from statehouses across the nation as opposed to sniping from smoke filled back rooms. Gotta' admit they've become great tacticians, while the D's tactics to defend our nation against this assault are...well, what are they again exactly? Jan 6 Commission? Good. And absolutely needed. But you could lock up the whole lot tomorrow, and the rounds from the statehouses would still be incoming. In the broader theater of this conflict, it's a flak jacket defense against a howitzer.
OK, sorry for the rant. Haven't had my coffee yet and feeling a bit grumpy, I suppose. Not too often prone to being "triggered", but I guess the word "policy" sort of pulled it for me this time. And I just feel that if we become a DRINO (democratic republic in name only), "policy" ain't gonna' matter much, since it will be whatever the powers that be say it is, period. So, the only "policy" I'm really concerned with at the moment is one that will prevent this from becoming a reality.
I hope I'm wrong on this. I pray I'm wrong. Nothing would brighten my day more than to be wrong. I suppose time will tell. Guess in the meantime I'd better get that cup of Joe.
Believe me, I feel you on almost all of this. Especially the part about hoping to be wrong. Not an easy trait to nurture these days.
Which is, ultimately, our problem isn't it? Too many people digging their heels in on bad ideas when they ought to know better. Too many who would rather risk everything we all hold dear than have to acknowledge being wrong.
Oh and don't worry, I'm fairly confident Jesus would never run as a Republican. He'd get destroyed in the primary. 😏
Right back at ya' on every word. I'm as human as anyone, and when told I'm wrong about something, even when I know it to be true from the jump, I can feel the self-defense mechanisms powering themselves up. Takes some practice to be able to power 'em down sometimes, and even after all these years I'm not nearly as good at it as I would like to be. But, at least I'm aware of the problem, even if I don't get it right each and every time. And that's not nothing, I suppose.
But I'll tell you what, I'd so much like to be wrong about this I'd even pay serious money to be so. And I don't part with my hard-earned $$ very easily these days. Hell, I'll even up the ante and say that if it could be proven for sure and for certain that I'm completely wrong about this, I'd happily march on down to The Sunshine State, tell a certain someone to drop his drawers, and bend over and kiss his big fat ass.
Think anyone on the other side of this ugly divide feels the same way? Not likely, I think. Because most of them are so emotionally invested in the whole damned narrative that powers their anger and sense of grievance that the thought of being wrong is a threat to their very being. And that's what makes them and this whole situation so freakin' dangerous.
Had that coffee and am little less grumpy now. Your thoughtful words also helped, so thanks for that.
Read somewhere that was also part of the effort to get Spiro the Bag Man Agnew out of office. If I recall, there was some speculation that there were those who saw the prospect of Nixon either being impeached and removed or resigning and Agnew moving to the Oval Office to be even more grim than Nixon remaining in power, since bags of kick-back cash lying about on the desk of the President might not be a good look. And Nixon, knowing this, wasn't above using it as leverage. So, the memo also had the purpose of reassuring him (Tricky Dick) that the Justice Department wouldn't come gunning for him, and thus smooth the way for Agnew's departure.
Don't know if that's completely true, but it's an interesting theory.
Spiro Agnew...now, you talk about a guy that needed a little prosecutin'...
Ah, the Good Old Days, when crime and corruption at the top were so much simpler and straight forward...just a garden variety illegal cover-up, and some actual cold, hard, ill-gotten cash. Kind of makes me a little misty...
And a general public that wasn't so easily conned into accepting this sort of thing. It's no surprise that the Nixon Administration was the genesis of Roger Ailes' long, depressingly successful odyssey to create the right-wing media ecosystem we have today.
One thing that has been completely lost in the discussion of executive privilege is that it doesn't apply to all, or even most, communications by the President. Executive privilege protects presidential communications which are deliberative in nature, i.e. they have to do with the development of policy. An example might be the President talking to an advisor about what policy to have toward Israel. The idea behind executive privilege is that we want the President to have a frank and open exchange of ideas when developing policy. If those involved know those communications might be made public, the advice to the President may be constrained. Even if Trump was still President, his communications relating to what happened on January 6th are not even remotely covered by executive privilege. They have nothing - zero - to do with the development of policy.
Hey TC...thanks for your observation. Noted I wasn't the least bit scholarly, but do recall - now that you mention it - reading somewhere about the Washington thing and its relationship to what we've come to call executive privilege. I would have put it better had I said that according to my admittedly light weight understanding of history, the whole EP thing really began to take off about the time noted, and has become an increasingly powerful (and legally questionable) shade against sunshine illuminating nefarious goings-on in the Oval Office and elsewhere. I could be wrong, and please don't ask me to recall where I read about that premise. I don't remember what I had for breakfast this morning besides coffee. (My memory can sometimes be a bit light weight these days as well.)
But I'd be interested in your opinion about the gist of what I was trying to say, that perhaps it's time for some bloodletting for this particular sacred cow in certain circumstances, such as those we find ourselves in at the moment regarding all things Jan. 06?
If I am not mistaken, it goes back further than that, being rooted in the English monarchy and the unwritten English constitution. There is a surprising amount of stuff in US law and politics that goes back to English common law and political practice.
I think despite the dooming about the January 6 Committee we are going to get a ton of information about it. I think it will confirm a lot of what many of us suspect or already know: the Trump administration was trying to hold onto power by any means short of outright violence. And they probably didn't try outright violence because the Joint Chiefs told them "NO" very pointedly.
The question is - will anyone care until it affects them? In another time, the general voting population might be extremely concerned. But we have a lot of people who worship the ground Trump walks on and I'm not super-confident.
It is quite funny, we are not closer to the we have information that shows Trump did what we all know he did and this is really going to bring him down this time. You all need to live in reality. The real truth is we are closer to now being open and clear that Trump will be able and brazen enough to say "I did it and what about it?". Just like he said to Pence that he didn't care enough to do something and fight back. Now, his supporters will love him even more and the anti-anti's can go hide and act like they never heard any of this because of socialists, inflation, and caravans of migrants soon to wash over the country like a very serious virus might do.
this being a real possibility was on my mind as well... they may have this well in hand, I think of it as having an airtight enough case against Trump that they will be able to pass federal voting rights protections and anti-coup measure (Schiff's bill that the House just passed - work for that to advance, why don't you?)
No, I don't think that. I think the investigation will die as soon as the GoP gets a House majority in the next midterm.
Exactly what do you expect to happen? No GoP politician in "good standing" will grant validity to anything that comes out of the committee. No Cult members will be convinced by any amount of any kind of evidence. Independents might agree that Trump is a PoS, but then many did not vote for him at the time... but they will still vote for other Republicans now because... inflation, wokeness, the socialism, or any other excuse--because the LAST thing they want to admit is that the Republic is in actual danger.
The committee will come out with some findings, which pretty much every GoP politician and media personality will dismiss as a partisan attack and a bunch of lies. They will be believed by those who want to believe. Some minor players may be charged by the DoJ. None of the major players will be. This will all drag through the court system multiple times until it gets memory holed or the GoP retakes power.
There is no will to actually do much in response to any of this. The large number of people in the middle voted for a return to normalcy (LOL) and are busy trying to pretend everything is normal and that none of these scumbags actually means what they say. I am sure many of the politicians don't mean much of what they say--but the fact that they have to say it says something in and of itself. These politicians do not actually have any control and exercise zero leadership--they follow the demands of the mob, which are echoes of what Trump and the Right media push... The media is just trying to make money--but Trump and a number of his followers mean what they say and say what they want.
Mobs are notoriously fickle, stupid, and prone to violence.
I expect a full blown disaster over the next few years because sane people lack the courage to act or the ability to act effectively (if they do have the courage).
A pretty fair assessment, I think. Feel much the same way myself. Btw...I'm about as "in the middle" as you can get, and not pretending anything is normal. But I know there are a lot of us middle ground folks who are, and that's pretty scary.
Didn't vote for a "return to normalcy" but to keep the country from going over the cliff. Normalcy or anything resembling it, if it is to return, is a long way off and will not likely look as it did in the past. (And that may not be such a bad thing.) I voted to silence the piper's flute and stanch the flow of lemmings marching toward the precipice. Wouldn't have cared much if they went over, just didn't want the rest of the country to be dragged over with them. No, I voted for stability, which we have to some very small degree now, relatively speaking at least. Which buys a little time to gird for the more well-organized assault on our freedom and liberties that I'm unhappily rather certain is coming.
It's pretty much always been Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil about one thing or another in our country. But the sun always rises, and for the most part Good, to one degree or another, has more often been revealed in its light than Evil. And I hope it will be so this time around as well. But hoping won't git 'er done. And, sadly, neither will voting for Republicans, as there don't seem to be enough good ones left (i.e., Cheney, Kinzinger, Meijer) to make any difference. Not in the short term anyway. And if you want to win a war - be it hot or cold - you need to use the most effective tactics.
At my age I doubt I'll be around long enough to see what any long-term "return to normalcy" looks like. It took a long time to arrive at the point at which we find ourselves at the moment, and an election cycle or two, even if the results are "good", won't produce much more than some much needed and hopefully stronger stability. But you know, if that means I can go to bed at night with a reasonable expectation that if I get up on the right side of the dirt the next morning, I'll be arising in a country that's still a democratic republic, and not one preceded by the name of a certain yellow fruit from south of our border, I'm good with that.
BLM is like any other fundraising organization, and many of my friends, whom might be deemed the “wokeist of the woke” are unhappy with the organization. Shawn King is another example of someone who grifted off the cause. Very funny comedian, Mateen Stewart encourages those who truly wish to help black people to donate to black colleges rather than to BLM. The org isn’t wrong about Chicago’s history of brutality, though. That’s the problem with the lack of criminal justice reform in this country. There’s a real problem and grifters abound when they can make a dollar off those of us who legitimately want to help.
I donate to the Thurgood Marshall College Fund (when I’m not broke AF), and you should too sometime. https://www.tmcf.org/
Also—- I know a lot of you have heard me say this before, ending our disastrous War on Drugs would do so much to help. We have more drugs around then ever before, and police can still use drugs as a way to end someone’s life. Breonna Taylor payed the price for the Drug War, as did thousands before her. I’m a fan of Justin Amash because he gets it, as do many reasonable Libertarians.
The BLM statement is obviously insane, and backing a convicted felon who framed imaginary MAGA hat wearers with paid Nigerian actors in an effort to stoke racial animosity, while attacking Chicago police and saying nothing about what's actually killing black people in Chicago, kind of discredits their organization. But FFS NYC, what are you doing allowing non-citizens to vote? For years, Republican voters have been in a tizzy over non-citizens voting, encouraged and enabled by Democrats as a way to gain and maintain political power, and we've always told them they're out of their minds insane, this is not happening, and anyone telling you it is is a liar. This is going to run at 8pm on Fox every night for the foreseeable future, and Tucker won't be wrong.
You may want to read my post above with excerpts from democracy docket explanation. NYC is the largest- but not the first nor the only part of US to give limited voting rights to certain non citizens
I appreciate your efforts to provide nuance to the policy. But the unfortunate fact is that there is a headline, in the Washington Post, not the Washington Examiner, that says NYC becomes the largest municipality to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. I tend to view everything primarily through a political lens, because I really view GOP election wins as a threat to the survival of our republic. It may be a defensible policy, but unfortunately, I think that's beside the point. We need to make it through this next 4-8 years, and own-goals are not helping.
ok - I understand that whether or not you would agree with the underlying decision about allowing these people to vote - you think the decision to do so at this time becomes a valuable weapon for the far right. I see your point. And hate that this is what we have come to.
The New York City Council is set to approve a bill, Intro 1867, that allows legal permanent residents and those with work authorizations to vote in municipal elections and register as members of political parties. The work authorization category includes Dreamers, people enrolled in Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), or people with Temporary Protected Status. An individual must be a resident of New York City for at least 30 days before the election to qualify as a municipal voter. Notably, Intro 1867 does not expand voting rights to all non-citizens — it does not include undocumented immigrants or people with short-term visas (tourists, for example).
Intro 1867 authorizes qualified non-citizens to vote in municipal elections only. This means the new voters can take part in elections for New York City offices, including mayor, city council, comptroller, public advocate, borough president and local ballot measures. The non-citizen voters will not be eligible to vote in federal elections nor in statewide elections.
As of June 2021, 14 municipalities across the U.S. permit non-citizens to vote in local elections. 11 of these municipalities are in Maryland, two in Vermont and one in California. In 2016, voters in San Francisco approved Proposition N, which permits non-citizen parents of children in public schools to vote in school board elections. Most recently, two Vermont cities, including the capital Montpelier, changed their city charters to allow non-citizen residents to vote in local elections. While Gov. Phil Scott (R) vetoed the plan, the Democratic-controlled state Legislature overrode that veto.
Laws that expand voting rights to certain non-citizens are often inaccurately characterized by opponents, either in defining which non-citizens can vote or in what type of elections.
Proponents (say): “These are residents of our city who live here, work here, go to school here, raise families here, and pay taxes here. They deserve to have a say in the direction of our city,” writes the Our City, Our Vote campaign. The new municipal voters would be composed of parents who send their children to public schools and homeowners, renters and business owners who want a say in the neighborhood policies. It’s also worth noting non-citizens in New York City have been on the frontlines during the pandemic, keeping the city running and New Yorkers healthy. Additionally, legal residents are required to pay taxes, even if they are not citizens. In New York City, that amounts to billions of dollars per year of “taxation without representation.”
Tali Farhadian Weinstein, a candidate in the 2021 election for New York county district attorney, also emphasized the long wait periods and administrative backlogs that lock residents out of the political process while waiting for their citizenship. “My dad was 30 years old when he came to this country,” Farhadian Weinstein writes. “Although my parents quickly got authorization to work here, my dad turned 45 before he became a citizen and could cast his first vote.”
In contrast to Republican voter suppression laws across the country, New York City is looking to expand voting rights and include more people in the political process. It is still a very rare step for a municipality to proactively implement, but nonetheless raises important questions about the country’s ideals of citizenship, representation and who gets a say in the policy that impacts everyday life.
My opinion - I am not a far left progressive (after all I subscribe to Bulwark!) - but I like to sample multiple sides of an argument and I have to say I am sympathetic to the idea that people who pay taxes should have some level of voice in their community.
Just listened to the This is Madness podcast with Tim Miller - where this hold my beer topic was briefly discussed. Charlie's response to the "no tax without representation" argument was that advocates could also argue why limit this to local elections - allow legal permanent residents to also vote in statewide and federal elections. But are they actually saying this? Why isn't there a logical argument about allowing local votes but use broader voting rights as an incentive to obtain citizenship. I am getting very discouraged with the idea that Democrats have to do everything perfectly and message it perfectly or the abusive party will come back into power and punish us all.
The fact that other democracies allow local (municipal) voting, in some cases for many years, means it's not some wild and crazy idea. Local school boards impact the lives of the citizens of every municipality, including legal residents who have kids in those schools. Or to vote for and against issues that raise their property taxes. We're also talking about *legal residents* -- those who have green cards or other visas allowing them to live and work in the U.S. And like you, I agree that the right to vote in state and federal elections should come with citizenship.
Why is it troubling, other than the optics? I have vague memories of a revolution being fought where one of the rallying cries was no taxation without representation.
If you are paying taxes to some political subdivision (township, county, municipality) but do not reside there or are not a citizen (but are a legal resident) then why shouldn't you get some say via a vote about how your taxes are spent?
I used to live in one township but worked in a different one. I paid a tax to the one I did not reside in because I worked there. Did not get a cote for the local offices in that township, though.
Both Australia and New Zealand, where I spent some time, allow permanent residents to vote in their elections. New Zealand's policy seems a bit more open than Australia's, which (I think) only applies (in federal elections) to people who were permanent residents before 1984 -- but it appears that permanent residents in Australia may vote in some local elections. If someone has fulfilled the requirements to obtain permanent residency, it makes sense to me to allow them to vote in local, municipal elections.
I have scanned thru the Mathews Memo regarding the Army's reaction to the pleas for help from Capitol Building authorities. It sure reads to me that many of the delaying Army authorities who had the ability to launch a swift defense of our capitol were purposely delaying the response. My paranoia of situations like this leads me to believe there were several in the position to act who were very pro-Trump and wanted the attack to succeed.
This makes me very concerned of their loyalties to our Constitution and the Oaths they took to become members of our nation's protecting force!
I believe there needs to be a Congressional and DOJ investigation of those actions!
Regarding 1/6, it seem that all we need to know about who directed the attack and who refused to send help is that Trump was not evacuated from the WH and/or DC to a remote, secure location.
Charlie. My man. I love ya. I almost always agree with you when you criticize the Democrats for bad messaging. But I have to push back on the issue of allowing non-citizens to vote in New York. A little tough love for my conservative friends, to paraphrase a certain someone. 😏
The thing I hate most about this issue is that you may well be right about the messaging. Maybe it is too close to "DEMS WANT ILLEGALS TO VOTE FOR PRESIDENT!!!" to avoid having it warped by bad-faith partisans. But that would be a real shame.
Because we aren't talking about illegals. We're talking about legal residents - people with green cards, work permits, student visas, etc. These are people who typically reside here legally for a period of several years (say, for much of the term of a typical elected official), pay taxes, and when they leave may very well be replaced by someone similar to them with similar interests. And I know from listening to your Friday podcast that you're aware of this.
Also, (again, I know you're aware of this) we're talking about them voting in *local* elections. The ones most relevant to people's daily lives. Not federal, not even state elections. You claimed these positions are "indistinguishable". Yet I'm fairly confident most Americans fully understand the difference between state and local government. (Local government is the one they don't care about anymore, even though they know it exists.)
I know how easy it is to be cynical about the average American's capacity for nuance. But we're just plain giving up on it entirely if even folks like you don't want to give an issue the fair hearing it deserves.
A lot of people hear the term "non-citizens" and assume that it's a euphemism for "illegal immigrants" (which makes for a great argument against euphemistic language, but I digress). I even catch myself doing it. In fact, when I first heard about this issue in DC a couple of years ago, I was incredulous at first - until I realized they were talking about legal non-citizen residents and local elections. Then it suddenly seemed far more reasonable.
I think a lot of people would react the same way if those points were emphasized up front. The political ad practically writes itself - "Shouldn't immigrants who love America, follow the rules, and pay their taxes get to vote for dog catcher?"
But when your initial reaction to this is "WTF Democrats?!?" - even if you're reacting purely to the political messaging and timing rather than the substance of the policy - it will be natural for many to assume the worst possible interpretation. Why would reasonable ol' Charlie be getting so upset otherwise?
So please consider revisiting this with a more measured tone. We all know there are people who will distort this issue for political gain - don't inadvertently give them an assist.
Sometimes appears that "if it bleeds it leads" media attitude affects even the most well meaning sources. This issue could have been framed in a lot more positive way - explaining why the NYC policy is neither novel nor stupid - but still acknowledging Democrats will need to counter the inevitable false reporting by alt Right.
This is exactly right. NYC leaders should be making decisions based on what's best for their city, not whether Ted Cruz will post some disingenuous meme. Cuz guess what? HE'S GOING TO DO THAT ANYWAY.
Love that Liz Cheney is becoming the public face of the January 6th committee. Hope the confidence she is demonstrating is rooted in solid evidence.
Okay, I can't stand Stacey Abrams who, like Trump, spreads the lie of a stolen election, without any credible evidence. But how in the world can former Senator Perdue say with a straight face that Abrams controls Georgia's election system?
I don't have much tolerance for any pearl clutchers gasping at the idea that noncitizens have a say in how the schools they send their children to are run. I'm more than happy to hear what my law abiding neighbors have to say about local issues because I actually believe in local control (I would draw the line at offices that impact foreign policy because noncitizens can be presumed to have loyalty to another country). Evidently, Charlie does not. He offers no problems with this, perhaps because there are none, other than that it is "woke" and a political loser. As if the only thing I care about is winning elections. I suppose we should stand for liberalism UNLESS it's more politically expedient to stand with the bigots /s. Say hi to the anti-antis for me.
Like everyone on Bulwark+, I'm a politically homeless mishmash of left and right views, so being a political loser is not new to me, though at least I'm not a political loser of Charlie's calibre. But it's never a loss as long as you actually get the policy. After all, Tucker Carlson will always find something else to complain about,.
Two quick comments about today's Shots. First, it would be nice if Democrats recognized that Hispanic is not a race but an ethnicity and that a majority of Hispanics likely identify as being White. (Bonus if they recognized how religious most Black and Hispanics are, compared to their Woke White brethren). Second, NYC allowing noncitizens to vote is not only politically tone deaf but also amusing since the current NYC Board of Elections is a certified sh!tshow. If you cannot run good elections for your current voting population, complicating it by adding a whole new class of voters--who can only vote in some elections--is a recipe for disaster.
NYC allowing non-citizens to vote is only tone deaf if you have no understanding of nuance or the actual details--which, of course, is the vast majority of the US electorate. I have been in situations where I paid taxes to a locale merely because I happened to work there (but did not live there)--so isn't that taxation w/o representation? DIdn't we fight a revolution over that? I have vague memories of that from school.
No historian, legal scholar, or scholar of any type here. But as to executive privilege, I don't think it's mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. Isn't it pretty much a made-up thing, an idea and practice promulgated from the Eisenhower era and not codified into actual law? And while it may be a now long-practiced rule and "norm", and an often practical and useful one, since DFn'T and his cadre of Rule & Norm Busters were all about slaughtering a whole herd of more or less sacred cows, perhaps it's time for some serious exsanguination on this particular one. And what better place to apply the blade than in the shop of the Head Butcher himself? All this EP BS is as appalling as nearly everything else you covered in Morning Shots today.
Btw...Can't say as I care for some of Liz Cheney's politics. But props to her for parkin' her backside in that seat on the Jan. 06 Committee, sitting up ramrod straight and speaking the truth without so much as a blink. All day, every day. She certainly has earned my respect and gratitude for that.
Had DFn'T had balls as big as hers while his sorry ass was seated in the Oval Office with his slimy little mitts directly on the levers of power, things would have turned out much differently. Lucky for us he is, in actuality, that thing he said he was so fond of grabbing. Problem is, too many of the a-holes surrounding him are not. And we need more people like Cheney to kick 'em all right in the nuts. And to keep on kickin' until they can't even crawl, much less walk upright.
Go girl!
While we're cleaning house on useless norms, let's get rid of this "no indicting a sitting President" baloney. These were policies drafted by political appointees to protect their bosses.
Not to mention, people have argued that we can't prosecute Trump for what he did in office because the cost of losing an election shouldn't be going to jail. That's a good argument! A perfect one, in fact, for subjecting sitting Presidents to the law just like everyone else. Especially when removing them from office, regardless of the method, is a political exercise, not a legal one.
If, at least in theory, no one is "above" the law (oh that it was so!), why should someone get a 4-to-8-year time out from it, along with a ticking clock on statute of limitations for a criminal act committed prior to said time out? Might not ever put the fear of God into a sitting president, but a little bit of fear of being prosecuted for a crime might be a good thing. Obviously, we can in no way depend on Congress to solve the problem of a criminal continuing to hold the highest office in the land.
I remember when the possibility of Trump being prosecuted for obstruction of justice was being tossed around (before we realized Mueller had no intention of doing any such thing from the beginning). The statute of limitations - five years. How convenient!
So the doctrine of not prosecuting a sitting President not only creates a criminal penalty for losing re-election, but potentially allows for complete criminal amnesty as a reward for winning re-election.
And at least with Nixon, people had every reason to believe that Congress was fully capable of removing a crook from office (Nixon certainly believed it enough to resign in discrace). Since that's obviously no longer true, and amending the Constitution is sadly all but impossible, I'd say a policy update is in order.
In order and way past due. But the window on that opportunity is closing fast, if not already closed. Midterms are a stone's throw away, and if (when) R's reclaim Congress, that window will be slammed shut, locked and barred. But much, much more importantly, ditto the chance to shore up Fed election system process, which will be the front on which the next assault on our democracy / republic will certainly occur (Electoral College issues.)
I've never been an R or a D for a number of reasons. And until 2016 had often voted a split ticket, again for a number of reasons. As to my current attitude toward the R's, if Jesus Christ were running for Dog Catcher, he couldn't even buy my vote with a Certificate of Salvation notarized by God.
As to the D's, with a clarion call to action on election issues sounding all around them, the Squad and the Moderates (all 2 of them) spent their time pissin' on each other's shoes over $$$$. And so many of the rest have been too damned busy fighting the Culture War to notice a real war is in full swing, being fought with realpolitik on the other side, the practical concern for the other side being their lust for power and their willingness to go all in to get it and then permanently retain it.
The D's habit of bringing a butter knife to a gunfight is bad enough, but this time it's a full-on artillery assault, and, by the look of it, their response will end up being just as lame and ineffectual as always. And time's quickly running out, even if they do by some miracle wake up and get their heads out of the shade of their intestinal tracts.
But if the day comes that our Republic is stained with yellow fruit tint, I probably won't be as angry at the R's for having cast the dye as with the D's for having failed to prevent it when they had the opportunity. After all, the R's have become ever increasingly honest about who and what they are now, firing their shots in broad open daylight from statehouses across the nation as opposed to sniping from smoke filled back rooms. Gotta' admit they've become great tacticians, while the D's tactics to defend our nation against this assault are...well, what are they again exactly? Jan 6 Commission? Good. And absolutely needed. But you could lock up the whole lot tomorrow, and the rounds from the statehouses would still be incoming. In the broader theater of this conflict, it's a flak jacket defense against a howitzer.
OK, sorry for the rant. Haven't had my coffee yet and feeling a bit grumpy, I suppose. Not too often prone to being "triggered", but I guess the word "policy" sort of pulled it for me this time. And I just feel that if we become a DRINO (democratic republic in name only), "policy" ain't gonna' matter much, since it will be whatever the powers that be say it is, period. So, the only "policy" I'm really concerned with at the moment is one that will prevent this from becoming a reality.
I hope I'm wrong on this. I pray I'm wrong. Nothing would brighten my day more than to be wrong. I suppose time will tell. Guess in the meantime I'd better get that cup of Joe.
Believe me, I feel you on almost all of this. Especially the part about hoping to be wrong. Not an easy trait to nurture these days.
Which is, ultimately, our problem isn't it? Too many people digging their heels in on bad ideas when they ought to know better. Too many who would rather risk everything we all hold dear than have to acknowledge being wrong.
Oh and don't worry, I'm fairly confident Jesus would never run as a Republican. He'd get destroyed in the primary. 😏
Right back at ya' on every word. I'm as human as anyone, and when told I'm wrong about something, even when I know it to be true from the jump, I can feel the self-defense mechanisms powering themselves up. Takes some practice to be able to power 'em down sometimes, and even after all these years I'm not nearly as good at it as I would like to be. But, at least I'm aware of the problem, even if I don't get it right each and every time. And that's not nothing, I suppose.
But I'll tell you what, I'd so much like to be wrong about this I'd even pay serious money to be so. And I don't part with my hard-earned $$ very easily these days. Hell, I'll even up the ante and say that if it could be proven for sure and for certain that I'm completely wrong about this, I'd happily march on down to The Sunshine State, tell a certain someone to drop his drawers, and bend over and kiss his big fat ass.
Think anyone on the other side of this ugly divide feels the same way? Not likely, I think. Because most of them are so emotionally invested in the whole damned narrative that powers their anger and sense of grievance that the thought of being wrong is a threat to their very being. And that's what makes them and this whole situation so freakin' dangerous.
Had that coffee and am little less grumpy now. Your thoughtful words also helped, so thanks for that.
Read somewhere that was also part of the effort to get Spiro the Bag Man Agnew out of office. If I recall, there was some speculation that there were those who saw the prospect of Nixon either being impeached and removed or resigning and Agnew moving to the Oval Office to be even more grim than Nixon remaining in power, since bags of kick-back cash lying about on the desk of the President might not be a good look. And Nixon, knowing this, wasn't above using it as leverage. So, the memo also had the purpose of reassuring him (Tricky Dick) that the Justice Department wouldn't come gunning for him, and thus smooth the way for Agnew's departure.
Don't know if that's completely true, but it's an interesting theory.
Spiro Agnew...now, you talk about a guy that needed a little prosecutin'...
Ah, the Good Old Days, when crime and corruption at the top were so much simpler and straight forward...just a garden variety illegal cover-up, and some actual cold, hard, ill-gotten cash. Kind of makes me a little misty...
And a general public that wasn't so easily conned into accepting this sort of thing. It's no surprise that the Nixon Administration was the genesis of Roger Ailes' long, depressingly successful odyssey to create the right-wing media ecosystem we have today.
One thing that has been completely lost in the discussion of executive privilege is that it doesn't apply to all, or even most, communications by the President. Executive privilege protects presidential communications which are deliberative in nature, i.e. they have to do with the development of policy. An example might be the President talking to an advisor about what policy to have toward Israel. The idea behind executive privilege is that we want the President to have a frank and open exchange of ideas when developing policy. If those involved know those communications might be made public, the advice to the President may be constrained. Even if Trump was still President, his communications relating to what happened on January 6th are not even remotely covered by executive privilege. They have nothing - zero - to do with the development of policy.
Except for the quintessential, overarching policy of DFn'T 1st & foremost, always.
Hey TC...thanks for your observation. Noted I wasn't the least bit scholarly, but do recall - now that you mention it - reading somewhere about the Washington thing and its relationship to what we've come to call executive privilege. I would have put it better had I said that according to my admittedly light weight understanding of history, the whole EP thing really began to take off about the time noted, and has become an increasingly powerful (and legally questionable) shade against sunshine illuminating nefarious goings-on in the Oval Office and elsewhere. I could be wrong, and please don't ask me to recall where I read about that premise. I don't remember what I had for breakfast this morning besides coffee. (My memory can sometimes be a bit light weight these days as well.)
But I'd be interested in your opinion about the gist of what I was trying to say, that perhaps it's time for some bloodletting for this particular sacred cow in certain circumstances, such as those we find ourselves in at the moment regarding all things Jan. 06?
If I am not mistaken, it goes back further than that, being rooted in the English monarchy and the unwritten English constitution. There is a surprising amount of stuff in US law and politics that goes back to English common law and political practice.
I think despite the dooming about the January 6 Committee we are going to get a ton of information about it. I think it will confirm a lot of what many of us suspect or already know: the Trump administration was trying to hold onto power by any means short of outright violence. And they probably didn't try outright violence because the Joint Chiefs told them "NO" very pointedly.
The question is - will anyone care until it affects them? In another time, the general voting population might be extremely concerned. But we have a lot of people who worship the ground Trump walks on and I'm not super-confident.
It is quite funny, we are not closer to the we have information that shows Trump did what we all know he did and this is really going to bring him down this time. You all need to live in reality. The real truth is we are closer to now being open and clear that Trump will be able and brazen enough to say "I did it and what about it?". Just like he said to Pence that he didn't care enough to do something and fight back. Now, his supporters will love him even more and the anti-anti's can go hide and act like they never heard any of this because of socialists, inflation, and caravans of migrants soon to wash over the country like a very serious virus might do.
this being a real possibility was on my mind as well... they may have this well in hand, I think of it as having an airtight enough case against Trump that they will be able to pass federal voting rights protections and anti-coup measure (Schiff's bill that the House just passed - work for that to advance, why don't you?)
No, I don't think that. I think the investigation will die as soon as the GoP gets a House majority in the next midterm.
Exactly what do you expect to happen? No GoP politician in "good standing" will grant validity to anything that comes out of the committee. No Cult members will be convinced by any amount of any kind of evidence. Independents might agree that Trump is a PoS, but then many did not vote for him at the time... but they will still vote for other Republicans now because... inflation, wokeness, the socialism, or any other excuse--because the LAST thing they want to admit is that the Republic is in actual danger.
The committee will come out with some findings, which pretty much every GoP politician and media personality will dismiss as a partisan attack and a bunch of lies. They will be believed by those who want to believe. Some minor players may be charged by the DoJ. None of the major players will be. This will all drag through the court system multiple times until it gets memory holed or the GoP retakes power.
There is no will to actually do much in response to any of this. The large number of people in the middle voted for a return to normalcy (LOL) and are busy trying to pretend everything is normal and that none of these scumbags actually means what they say. I am sure many of the politicians don't mean much of what they say--but the fact that they have to say it says something in and of itself. These politicians do not actually have any control and exercise zero leadership--they follow the demands of the mob, which are echoes of what Trump and the Right media push... The media is just trying to make money--but Trump and a number of his followers mean what they say and say what they want.
Mobs are notoriously fickle, stupid, and prone to violence.
I expect a full blown disaster over the next few years because sane people lack the courage to act or the ability to act effectively (if they do have the courage).
I expect them to finish up before the election next fall.
Bannon in July leaves time for Trump in September.
A pretty fair assessment, I think. Feel much the same way myself. Btw...I'm about as "in the middle" as you can get, and not pretending anything is normal. But I know there are a lot of us middle ground folks who are, and that's pretty scary.
Didn't vote for a "return to normalcy" but to keep the country from going over the cliff. Normalcy or anything resembling it, if it is to return, is a long way off and will not likely look as it did in the past. (And that may not be such a bad thing.) I voted to silence the piper's flute and stanch the flow of lemmings marching toward the precipice. Wouldn't have cared much if they went over, just didn't want the rest of the country to be dragged over with them. No, I voted for stability, which we have to some very small degree now, relatively speaking at least. Which buys a little time to gird for the more well-organized assault on our freedom and liberties that I'm unhappily rather certain is coming.
It's pretty much always been Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil about one thing or another in our country. But the sun always rises, and for the most part Good, to one degree or another, has more often been revealed in its light than Evil. And I hope it will be so this time around as well. But hoping won't git 'er done. And, sadly, neither will voting for Republicans, as there don't seem to be enough good ones left (i.e., Cheney, Kinzinger, Meijer) to make any difference. Not in the short term anyway. And if you want to win a war - be it hot or cold - you need to use the most effective tactics.
At my age I doubt I'll be around long enough to see what any long-term "return to normalcy" looks like. It took a long time to arrive at the point at which we find ourselves at the moment, and an election cycle or two, even if the results are "good", won't produce much more than some much needed and hopefully stronger stability. But you know, if that means I can go to bed at night with a reasonable expectation that if I get up on the right side of the dirt the next morning, I'll be arising in a country that's still a democratic republic, and not one preceded by the name of a certain yellow fruit from south of our border, I'm good with that.
BLM is like any other fundraising organization, and many of my friends, whom might be deemed the “wokeist of the woke” are unhappy with the organization. Shawn King is another example of someone who grifted off the cause. Very funny comedian, Mateen Stewart encourages those who truly wish to help black people to donate to black colleges rather than to BLM. The org isn’t wrong about Chicago’s history of brutality, though. That’s the problem with the lack of criminal justice reform in this country. There’s a real problem and grifters abound when they can make a dollar off those of us who legitimately want to help.
I donate to the Thurgood Marshall College Fund (when I’m not broke AF), and you should too sometime. https://www.tmcf.org/
Also—- I know a lot of you have heard me say this before, ending our disastrous War on Drugs would do so much to help. We have more drugs around then ever before, and police can still use drugs as a way to end someone’s life. Breonna Taylor payed the price for the Drug War, as did thousands before her. I’m a fan of Justin Amash because he gets it, as do many reasonable Libertarians.
*Shaun King! I spelled his name wrong. For those unfamiliar, a link: https://www.blackenterprise.com/grifter-or-nah-shaun-king-lives-it-up-in-luxe-jersey-estate-while-begging-for-money-for-his-wife/
The BLM statement is obviously insane, and backing a convicted felon who framed imaginary MAGA hat wearers with paid Nigerian actors in an effort to stoke racial animosity, while attacking Chicago police and saying nothing about what's actually killing black people in Chicago, kind of discredits their organization. But FFS NYC, what are you doing allowing non-citizens to vote? For years, Republican voters have been in a tizzy over non-citizens voting, encouraged and enabled by Democrats as a way to gain and maintain political power, and we've always told them they're out of their minds insane, this is not happening, and anyone telling you it is is a liar. This is going to run at 8pm on Fox every night for the foreseeable future, and Tucker won't be wrong.
You may want to read my post above with excerpts from democracy docket explanation. NYC is the largest- but not the first nor the only part of US to give limited voting rights to certain non citizens
I appreciate your efforts to provide nuance to the policy. But the unfortunate fact is that there is a headline, in the Washington Post, not the Washington Examiner, that says NYC becomes the largest municipality to allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. I tend to view everything primarily through a political lens, because I really view GOP election wins as a threat to the survival of our republic. It may be a defensible policy, but unfortunately, I think that's beside the point. We need to make it through this next 4-8 years, and own-goals are not helping.
ok - I understand that whether or not you would agree with the underlying decision about allowing these people to vote - you think the decision to do so at this time becomes a valuable weapon for the far right. I see your point. And hate that this is what we have come to.
In regard to your tweet about Dems not being in touch with the country's views on citizenship and your response that NYC says "hold my beer" - I found this article by Democracy Docket interesting - https://www.democracydocket.com/news/understanding-voting-rights-for-non-citizens
Selected Quotes from the article:
The New York City Council is set to approve a bill, Intro 1867, that allows legal permanent residents and those with work authorizations to vote in municipal elections and register as members of political parties. The work authorization category includes Dreamers, people enrolled in Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), or people with Temporary Protected Status. An individual must be a resident of New York City for at least 30 days before the election to qualify as a municipal voter. Notably, Intro 1867 does not expand voting rights to all non-citizens — it does not include undocumented immigrants or people with short-term visas (tourists, for example).
Intro 1867 authorizes qualified non-citizens to vote in municipal elections only. This means the new voters can take part in elections for New York City offices, including mayor, city council, comptroller, public advocate, borough president and local ballot measures. The non-citizen voters will not be eligible to vote in federal elections nor in statewide elections.
As of June 2021, 14 municipalities across the U.S. permit non-citizens to vote in local elections. 11 of these municipalities are in Maryland, two in Vermont and one in California. In 2016, voters in San Francisco approved Proposition N, which permits non-citizen parents of children in public schools to vote in school board elections. Most recently, two Vermont cities, including the capital Montpelier, changed their city charters to allow non-citizen residents to vote in local elections. While Gov. Phil Scott (R) vetoed the plan, the Democratic-controlled state Legislature overrode that veto.
Laws that expand voting rights to certain non-citizens are often inaccurately characterized by opponents, either in defining which non-citizens can vote or in what type of elections.
Proponents (say): “These are residents of our city who live here, work here, go to school here, raise families here, and pay taxes here. They deserve to have a say in the direction of our city,” writes the Our City, Our Vote campaign. The new municipal voters would be composed of parents who send their children to public schools and homeowners, renters and business owners who want a say in the neighborhood policies. It’s also worth noting non-citizens in New York City have been on the frontlines during the pandemic, keeping the city running and New Yorkers healthy. Additionally, legal residents are required to pay taxes, even if they are not citizens. In New York City, that amounts to billions of dollars per year of “taxation without representation.”
Tali Farhadian Weinstein, a candidate in the 2021 election for New York county district attorney, also emphasized the long wait periods and administrative backlogs that lock residents out of the political process while waiting for their citizenship. “My dad was 30 years old when he came to this country,” Farhadian Weinstein writes. “Although my parents quickly got authorization to work here, my dad turned 45 before he became a citizen and could cast his first vote.”
In contrast to Republican voter suppression laws across the country, New York City is looking to expand voting rights and include more people in the political process. It is still a very rare step for a municipality to proactively implement, but nonetheless raises important questions about the country’s ideals of citizenship, representation and who gets a say in the policy that impacts everyday life.
My opinion - I am not a far left progressive (after all I subscribe to Bulwark!) - but I like to sample multiple sides of an argument and I have to say I am sympathetic to the idea that people who pay taxes should have some level of voice in their community.
Just listened to the This is Madness podcast with Tim Miller - where this hold my beer topic was briefly discussed. Charlie's response to the "no tax without representation" argument was that advocates could also argue why limit this to local elections - allow legal permanent residents to also vote in statewide and federal elections. But are they actually saying this? Why isn't there a logical argument about allowing local votes but use broader voting rights as an incentive to obtain citizenship. I am getting very discouraged with the idea that Democrats have to do everything perfectly and message it perfectly or the abusive party will come back into power and punish us all.
The fact that other democracies allow local (municipal) voting, in some cases for many years, means it's not some wild and crazy idea. Local school boards impact the lives of the citizens of every municipality, including legal residents who have kids in those schools. Or to vote for and against issues that raise their property taxes. We're also talking about *legal residents* -- those who have green cards or other visas allowing them to live and work in the U.S. And like you, I agree that the right to vote in state and federal elections should come with citizenship.
Thanks for this perspective. Still troubling, but it makes more sense now.
Why is it troubling, other than the optics? I have vague memories of a revolution being fought where one of the rallying cries was no taxation without representation.
If you are paying taxes to some political subdivision (township, county, municipality) but do not reside there or are not a citizen (but are a legal resident) then why shouldn't you get some say via a vote about how your taxes are spent?
I used to live in one township but worked in a different one. I paid a tax to the one I did not reside in because I worked there. Did not get a cote for the local offices in that township, though.
Both Australia and New Zealand, where I spent some time, allow permanent residents to vote in their elections. New Zealand's policy seems a bit more open than Australia's, which (I think) only applies (in federal elections) to people who were permanent residents before 1984 -- but it appears that permanent residents in Australia may vote in some local elections. If someone has fulfilled the requirements to obtain permanent residency, it makes sense to me to allow them to vote in local, municipal elections.