The road that led to Jimmy Carter is a curious one.
Continue reading “The Jimmy Carter Renaissance”It’s Not Really a MAGA Civil War, More Like a Battle Over the Steering Wheel
We’re seeing a range of headlines today about the “MAGA civil war” centered on immigration policy. Is the point to put America to work for Americans (MAGA-coded “real Americans,” of course)? Or is it to open the flood gates for engineers from Bangalore and Taiwan to achieve maximum efficiency and the global dominance of Silicon Valley? Vivek Ramaswamy baldly went there with a long post arguing that you simply can’t staff Silicon Valley with native-born Americans because the country is mired in a “culture of mediocrity.” “A culture that celebrates the prom queen over the math olympiad champ, or the jock over the valedictorian, will not produce the best engineers,” he continued. It’s worth reading because it distills a specific viewpoint, at least parts of which many people agree with and which has powerful backers in Silicon Valley.
But let me suggest that a “MAGA civil war” isn’t the right frame to understand any of this. MAGA of the 2024-25 era is more like an electoral machine built around Donald Trump. Itr runs very well. Who gets to run it and who does it work for? Good white folk from Middle America or the best and the brightest from South Asia? MAGA never really had core policies. It had impulses. A huge amount of canonical Trumpism, as it was articulated during the Biden years, was a raft of policies and goals that were little more than payback over the Mueller probe. With Trump now tired and on the way out, there’s an increasing free-for-all over who gets the keys. Musk? Bannon? Ramaswamy? The Project 2025 Heritage Crowd? JD Vance and Josh Hawley and anti-cat ladyism?
Continue reading “It’s Not Really a MAGA Civil War, More Like a Battle Over the Steering Wheel”A Match Made In A Fox News Basement?
Hello, it’s the weekend. This is The Weekender ☕️
After a week-ish off for the holidays, I gently dipped my toes back into the news cycle from the comfort of my couch Friday and was smacked in the face with the ice cold (albeit refreshing!) water that was the release of the House Ethics Committee’s report on its Matt Gaetz inquiry and the newly emerging rift in the MAGAsphere taking place between the tech bros (Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, et al.) and those on the vehemently anti-immigrant and often racist side of the movement (Laura Loomer, Nick Fuentes).
Continue reading “A Match Made In A Fox News Basement?”Returning to Big Pile of Money and the Battle Against Trump Lawfare
Ten days ago I wrote about the need for a big pile of money and good lawyering that would not only defend Trump’s self-proclaimed “enemies list” from civil and criminal legal harassment but affirmatively take the fight to Trump and MAGA’s legal corruption and abuses of power. Today I want to return to that topic. There’s good news and bad news, or good news and suboptimal news. Your mileage may vary.
Let’s start with the good news. There actually are some groups mobilizing to do this kind of defense. I’m not going to get into particulars or names of the groups for reasons I’ll explain in a moment — but groups or consortia that are organizing to be the place that Trump targets can go when they get their subpoena or their lawsuit or whatever other form the harassment or abuse it takes. And it’s not just Trump. It’s a more general effort to defend civil society. So perhaps it’s the immigrants rights group which is targeted by a state attorney general. Or it’s the independent press outlet being targeting by the federal or a state government or your run-of-the-mill billionaire. This is happening and it involves a lot of pre-existing groups coordinating their efforts to this end, but also umbrella operations getting commitments for pro-bono work from law firms and much else.
But there’s a catch. For very real reasons these groups don’t want to draw a lot of attention to themselves. They don’t want themselves to become the targets of harassment and lawfare when they’re trying to defend others from it. If they themselves get run out of business who’s going to be around to help everyone else? So I can’t give websites for these operations that you’d want to look up if you’re a target or show you how to contribute money. They’re not set up that way and they don’t want the attention.
Continue reading “Returning to Big Pile of Money and the Battle Against Trump Lawfare”Democratic Governors Brace For Coming Legal Battles Against Trump Admin
Just days after Donald Trump’s victory, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) — a vocal Trump critic — called for state lawmakers to convene a December special session ahead of Trump’s second term in the White House.
The goal: to “Trump-proof” the Golden State. Newsom emphasized he wanted to safeguard the state’s progressive policies on climate change, reproductive rights and immigration from the far-right agenda the president-elect and his administration will enact.
Ahead of Inauguration Day, Democratic governors across the country are working to implement guardrails to protect constituents against the most dangerous elements of Donald Trump’s agenda.
Continue reading “Democratic Governors Brace For Coming Legal Battles Against Trump Admin”Who Got Duped? MAGA Activists Worry That Nativism And Tech Oligarchy May Not Go Hand In Hand
It’s not always a great idea to cover political stories that exist entirely on social media. You can end up focused on narratives and disputes that unfold largely among the most online subset of political commentators, but that don’t show up anywhere in the real world. More importantly, you run the risk of manipulation by people who are trying to use social media platforms to spread unpopular ideas and will them into gaining broader acceptance.
But, I’ll make an exception here.
Over the past few days, a fight has erupted within the MAGA right over legal immigration, specifically about whether the country should admit more high-skilled immigrants.
Continue reading “Who Got Duped? MAGA Activists Worry That Nativism And Tech Oligarchy May Not Go Hand In Hand”Rudy Risks Contempt Finding; Dresses Up To Raise Money For Legal Defense
Rudy Giuliani is hard up for cash. He’s staring down a $148 million defamation judgment, and, as his debtors start to collect, is steadily losing access to the material rewards that a lifetime in politics and the public eye have brought him: Yankees memorabilia, a luxury car, a Manhattan apartment, several fancy watches.
Continue reading “Rudy Risks Contempt Finding; Dresses Up To Raise Money For Legal Defense”A North Carolina Supreme Court Candidate’s Bid To Overturn His Loss Is Based On Theory Election Deniers Deemed Extreme
This story first appeared at ProPublica. ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
Months before voters went to the polls in November, a group of election skeptics based in North Carolina gathered on a call and discussed what actions to take if they doubted any of the results.
One of the ideas they floated: try to get the courts or state election board to throw out hundreds of thousands of ballots cast by voters whose registrations are missing a driver’s license number and the last four digits of a Social Security number.
But that idea was resisted by two activists on the call, including the leader of the North Carolina chapter of the Election Integrity Network. The data was missing not because voters had done something wrong but largely as a result of an administrative error by the state. The leader said the idea was “voter suppression” and “100%” certain to fail in the courts, according to a recording of the July call obtained by ProPublica.
This novel theory is now at the center of a legal challenge by North Carolina appeals court Judge Jefferson Griffin, a Republican who lost a race for a state Supreme Court seat to the Democratic incumbent, Allison Riggs, by just 734 votes and is seeking to have the result overturned.
The state election board dismissed a previous version of the challenge, which is now being considered in federal court. Before the election, a Trump-appointed judge denied an attempt by the Republican National Committee to remove 225,000 voters from the rolls based on the same theory.
The latest case is getting attention statewide and across the country. But it has not yet been reported that members of the group that had helped publicize the idea had cast doubt on its legality.
“I don’t comment on pending litigation,” Griffin wrote to ProPublica in response to a detailed list of questions. “It would be a violation of our code of judicial conduct.”
Embry Owen, Riggs’ campaign manager, disputed the challenge and called on Griffin to concede. “It’s not appropriate for this election to be decided in court, period. NC voters have already made the decision to send Justice Riggs back to the Supreme Court,” she said.
The theory Griffin is citing originated with a right-wing activist, Carol Snow, who described herself to ProPublica in an email as “a Bona Fide Grade-A Election Denier.” Snow promoted it with the help of the state chapter of the Election Integrity Network, a national group whose leader worked with President Donald Trump in his failed effort to overturn the 2020 election. The network also was behind extensive efforts to prepare to contest a Trump loss this year in other states, as ProPublica has reported, as well as in North Carolina, according to previously unreported recordings and transcripts of meetings of the state chapter.
State election officials have found that missing information on a voter’s registration is not disqualifying because there are numerous valid reasons for the state’s database to lack that those details.
Those reasons include voters registering before state paperwork was updated about a year ago to require that information or using alternate approved documents, such as a utility bill, to verify their identities. What’s more, voters must still prove their identity when casting a ballot — most often with a driver’s license. “There is virtually no chance of voter fraud resulting from a voter not providing her driver’s license or social security number on her voter registration,” attorneys for the state election board wrote in response to the RNC lawsuit.
Bob Orr, a former GOP state Supreme Court justice who left the Republican Party in 2021, said he too doubts the theory. “I appreciate fighting for every vote: If you honestly think illegal votes have been cast, it’s legitimate to try to prove that,” he said. “But the bottom line is: Did anyone vote illegally? Have you been able to prove one person voted illegally? At this point, no. And we’re weeks past the election and multiple recounts, and there’s no evidence of that.”
In modern history, the state board’s decision on who wins elections has been final, said Chris Cooper, a professor specializing in North Carolina politics at Western Carolina University. That includes an even tighter race in 2020, when a Democratic justice conceded to a Republican after protesting her 401-vote loss to the board.
“We’re used to close elections, we’re used to protests, we’re used to candidates pushing every legal action up to the point the state election board rules,” Cooper said. But, he added, there is an important difference with Griffin’s petition, which goes beyond the state election board to the courts.
“This is basically saying the state elections system is wrong, and we’re going to court to try to change the rules of the game after the game has been played — which is unprecedented.”
In July 2024, the North Carolina chapter of the Election Integrity Network convened online to plan its efforts ahead of the presidential election. Worried about a surge of voter registrations from nonwhite voters who they believed would back Democrats, the activists discussed how to assemble a “suspicious voters list” of people whose ballots they could challenge.
Then, one of the group’s board members, Jay DeLancy, said he had another idea “that’s a lot slicker.”
DeLancy said that if a candidate lost a close election, the loss could be overturned by questioning the validity of voters whose registrations are missing their driver’s license and Social Security information. “Those are illegal votes,” he claimed. “I would file a protest.”
Jim Womack, the leader of the chapter, immediately pushed back: “That’s a records keeping problem on the part of the state board. That’s not illegal.”
Later in the call Womack said, “I’m 100% sure you’re not going to get a successful prosecution.” And he told the group, “That’s considered to be voter suppression, and there’s no way a court is going to find that way.”
But DeLancy asked for backup from the originator of that theory: Carol Snow. She argued that her theory could in fact overturn the outcome of an election.
“I guess we’re gonna find that out,” Snow said.
Snow is a leader of the conservative activist group North Carolina Audit Force and lives in the state’s rural mountains. After Trump’s loss in 2020, she threw herself into questioning the election’s results. In 2022, she accompanied a pair of far-right activists to a North Carolina election office where the two men unsuccessfully tried to forcefully access voting machines, and she participated in a failed pressure campaign to oust the election director who resisted them, ProPublica previously reported.
She also began filing overwhelming numbers of records requests and complaints to state election officials, an effort that Womack praised on the July call: “I think Carol has shown a way of really harassing — not that we want to do it for harassment purposes — but really needling the Board of Elections to do their jobs by just constantly deluging them.”
Since late 2021, the state elections board had spent far more time on her requests and complaints than those of any other individual, spokesperson Patrick Gannon said in a statement. “Ms. Snow’s constant barrage of requests and complaints causes other priorities and responsibilities to suffer,” Gannon said.
Snow described her work to ProPublica as “simply taking the time to learn about my state’s electoral process” and acting for the public good. “The records I’ve requested are owned by the public. In other words, I’m asking for what belongs to me,” Snow wrote to ProPublica. “If government agencies are understaffed and unable to comply with this state’s Public Records law, they should address the issue with the entities that fund them.”
In the fall of 2023, Snow filed a complaint alleging that North Carolina’s voter registration form did not clearly require voters to provide their driver’s license number and the last four digits of their Social Security number, as required by federal law — instead that information was coded as optional. Snow later described the missing information as a “line of attack” through which bad actors could cast fraudulent votes using fake identities. (A right-wing conspiracy theory holds that this was how Biden won the 2020 election.)
But she was not able to demonstrate that the missing information had led to anyone improperly voting. After obtaining public records for hundreds of thousands of voter registrations, Snow provided the state board with only seven examples of what she called potential double voting. The state board found all seven to be innocuous things like data entry errors.
The state board quickly updated the form to require the information. But from late 2023 through the fall of 2024, six complaints, some of which were partly based on Snow’s theory, were filed with the state election board. Aside from the updates to the form, the state board dismissed the complaints.
By the time of the July call, some of Snow’s peers seemed dismissive as well.
“I’m not suggesting that we can’t arm a candidate that loses a short, a close race with the information they need to file a protest using this,” Womack said on the call. “But I would just suggest to you that that’s not the way to win on this thing.”
Yet the information did end up in the Republican National Committee’s lawsuit trying to disqualify 225,000 voters, a challenge DeLancy filed against Riggs’ victory in North Carolina’s most populous county, and, the day after that was dismissed, Griffin’s challenge to over 60,000 voters.
DeLancy wrote to ProPublica that he filed the challenge on his own and did not coordinate with Griffin. He also said he disagreed with Womack’s description of such challenges as “voter suppression.” Instead, he said, he saw it as “a proper response” to the state election board’s “violation of federal law.” “Carol Snow deserves an Order of the Long Leaf Pine for exposing this treasonous behavior on the part of the election officials,” he wrote, referring to an award bestowed by North Carolina’s governor.
Womack wrote to ProPublica that the group he leads “is a non-partisan, neutral organization” that does “not favor one party over another.”
He also said that recordings of the group’s calls are “prohibited and violate our internal policies” and “whatever bootleg recording you may have is unauthorized and may well be altered.” ProPublica has seen a video recording of the call and verified portions of it with some participants.
Though Griffin’s challenge of Riggs’ victory is now being considered in federal court, legal experts say it could still end up back where he intended: in front of the state Supreme Court.
Griffin’s petition is making what experts describe as extreme asks to the Supreme Court: to allow him to bypass the lower courts, to allow ballots to be thrown out without proving that voters did anything knowingly wrong and to essentially decide whether to change its composition to six Republicans and one Democrat.
“Even if they do their best to be open-minded and independent, the facts of the potential conflicts of interest are just too obvious to the public,” said Orr, the former Republican justice.
Griffin has described Republican Supreme Court Chief Justice Paul Newby as a “good friend and mentor,” and Newby promoted Griffin’s 2020 run for the court of appeals. What’s more, a ProPublica review of campaign finance reports show that the spouses of three justices, including Newby’s wife, donated over $12,000 to Griffin’s most recent or previous campaigns. (The husband of the Supreme Court’s other Democratic justice donated to Riggs.)
Newby and other justices did not respond to a detailed list of questions sent to spokespeople for the Supreme Court.
When announcing his candidacy for the Supreme Court, Griffin declared, “We are a team that knows how to win — the same team that helped elect Chief Justice Paul Newby and three other members of the current Republican majority.”
A cartoon illustration that hangs in the Supreme Court depicts all the Republican appellate jurists as superheroes from the Justice League, with Newby caricatured as Superman and Griffin as the Flash.
Election Day Went (Relatively) Smoothly Because States Prepped For Violence Like 2020
Officials across the country spent the four years following 2020 preparing for another deluge of violence and chaos during the 2024 presidential election.
Continue reading “Election Day Went (Relatively) Smoothly Because States Prepped For Violence Like 2020”Threats And Harassment Push Some Public Officials To Quit, Some To Change Their Vote On Issues
This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It was originally published at The Conversation.
Threats and harassment are pushing some politicians out of office, scaring off some would-be candidates and even compelling some elected officials to change their vote.
Those are some of the conclusions of a new study I led on political violence in Southern California.
Rising threats against public officials is a national problem.
Between 2013 and 2016, there were, on average, 38 federal charges involving threats to public officials per year, according to the National Counterterrorism Innovation, Technology and Education Center, a research center. That average sharply increased between 2017 and 2022, when an average of 62 federal charges were brought annually for threats to public officials.
When elected officials worry for their safety, it has implications for all Americans. Democracy suffers when people are governed by fear.
‘Respectful discourse has been lost’
I am the founder and director of the Violence, Inequality and Power Lab, or VIP Lab, housed at the University of San Diego’s Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice. Over the past two years, the VIP Lab has been collecting data to understand the frequency and severity of threats against local elected officials in Southern California.
Our research focused on California’s three southernmost counties – San Diego, Riverside and Imperial. Together, these counties have just under 6 million residents, or roughly 15% of California’s population.
To capture as complete a picture as possible, we did a survey and interviews, reviewed news coverage and social media accounts, and scoured literature nationwide.
The first year, we focused only on San Diego County, surveying 330 mayors, city councilors, county board of supervisor members and school board and community college board members. Over 25% of survey recipients responded. Of them, 75% reported being threatened or harassed at least once in the past five years. Roughly half said the abuse occurred at least monthly.
Respondents had found their name shared on the dark web and seen cars drive past their homes in an intimidating manner. They’d been followed after public meetings and blocked from leaving. In some cases, their families were harassed.
“As a parent, [I] feel vulnerable,” one city council member said, adding that he’s become “very guarded with [my] kid in public.”
Topics that were most likely to prompt threats and harassment included COVID-19, gun control, school curricula and LGBTQ+ rights.
“Since the pandemic, people have been mobilized into different silos or groups of people,” said a school board member interviewed in 2023. “[R]espectful discourse has been lost in all of this.”
In year two, we sent surveys to 785 elected officials in all three counties. Two-thirds of respondents reported having been threatened or harassed at least once in the previous five years. Roughly the same number said verbal attacks had become a routine part of public service.
These attacks come from the public, they told us, and from other elected officials. Officials have been accused of corruption, called idiots and told they should die. School board members face allegations that they “don’t care about kids.”
The threats “are verbal, at council meetings, outside of meetings, during breaks,” said one interviewee serving on a city council. “I’ve been harassed by city council members, staff members, the city manager and the city attorney.”
A troubling trend
In simple terms, our research suggests that at least two of every three people who serve in public office in Southern California will be threatened, intimidated or harassed during their tenure.
Survey results suggest the average female elected official who experiences abuse is threatened or harassed at least six times as often as her male peers. Men reported being on the receiving end of abuse about once a year, while women suffer abuse almost monthly.
The attacks against women are more likely to be personalized – referring to their looks or their family members – and have a sexual nature.
It was “slanderous stuff,” one school board member told us of abusive text messages that started in 2022 after many years of service. “Language of being evil … of not being a Christian woman.”
Her husband was also followed by a car, and her home was circled by the same vehicle. No one else on her board reported similar abuse.
We heard many accounts like this from female elected officials in Southern California. One city councilwoman filed two police reports against men who threatened, harassed and stalked her. A second was threatened throughout her campaign and time in office, including by a man who used a racial slur and threatened to “take care of” her with his AK-47.
Even so, our most recent survey revealed that male elected officials are most concerned about political violence. Sixty-four percent reported that things had become worse during their time in office, compared with 50% of women.
Counterintuitively, white, male, rural and conservative respondents all reported that threats and harassment had gotten worse more often than their nonwhite, female, urban and liberal counterparts – even though nonwhite, female, urban and liberal respondents reported more threats and harassment overall.
This finding may reflect a meaningful shift in how threats are used in politics. We believe that those responsible for abuse previously targeted the most vulnerable elected officials – namely women and other underrepresented groups.
But as it becomes more common to use threats and harassment as a means to influence decision-making, everyone is a target.
Most of the abuse we documented is, thankfully, not physical. But “hostile, aggressive or violent acts motivated by political objectives or a desire to directly or indirectly affect political change or change in governance” is, by definition, political violence.
And our research shows that this constant, low-level abuse is taking its toll on people and communities.
Fear-based governing
Our study results mirror findings from other research on growing political violence in the U.S.
The number of threats targeting members of Congress went up 88% between 2018 and 2021, from 5,206 in 2018 to 9,625 in 2021.
Meanwhile, a 2023 study on state legislators by the nonprofit Brennan Center for Justice found that 89% had been threatened, harassed or insulted at some point over the previous three years. That means roughly 6,000 of the approximately 7,000 state legislators in the U.S. have been abused or intimidated since 2020.

Most Americans don’t need these data points: Three-quarters of Americans already believe political violence is a problem, according to the States United Democracy Center.
Constituents have a right, even an imperative, to make their opinions known to the individuals they elect. Accountability and representation are essential to democracy. But there is a line between expressing disagreement and using intimidation or violence to influence policy decisions. And the latter can have some distinctly undemocratic outcomes.
Six percent of the elected officials we interviewed said they had actually changed their vote on a specific issue due to the climate of fear. And 43% of our survey respondents said that threats and harassment have caused them to consider leaving their post.
“I don’t think it’s fair to have to fight so hard,” said one relatively new school board member. “I’m mad at myself for letting the bullies win.”
The climate of fear is also keeping people from serving. Nationwide, 69% of mayors surveyed by the Mayors Innovation Project said they knew someone who had decided not to run for office due to threats or fear of violence.
When fear – rather than the needs of community – becomes a driving force in politics, democracy loses. That’s rule by the powerful, not rule by the people.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.