Why The Chiefs And Royals Couldn’t Convince Kansas City Voters To Foot The Bill For Their Stadiums

This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It was originally published at The Conversation.

For the Kansas City Chiefs brass, it must have seemed like the perfect time to ask local voters to cough up some money for stadium renovations.

The team was riding high from a big Super Bowl win in February 2024, its third NFL championship in the past five years. Two fellow NFL franchises, the Buffalo Bills and Tennessee Titans, had received record taxpayer handouts for new stadiums in the past two years. And voters in neighboring Oklahoma City had recently approved at least $900 million in subsidies for a new NBA arena.

But the Chiefs and their partners in the effort, the Kansas City Royals of MLB, were in for a rude awakening.

On April 2, 2024, voters in Jackson County soundly rejected a referendum to extend a local sales tax for 40 years in order to provide $2 billion in public funding to build a new baseball stadium in downtown Kansas City and fund major renovations of Arrowhead Stadium, the home of the Chiefs.

The vote in Missouri came one month after the collapse of an arena project that would have moved the Washington, D.C.’s basketball and hockey teams, the Wizards and Capitals, to Alexandria, Virginia.

Similarly, proposed facilities in Las Vegas; Oakland, California; Tampa, Florida; and Chicago have all run into serious roadblocks, all stemming from taxpayers questioning why they should be forced to cover private businesses’ expenses.

What was looking like a flood of new taxpayer-financed sports facilities across the country has turned into a trickle.

A raw deal for the public

While leagues and team owners always claim that stadiums and arenas revitalize cities and generate huge economic returns, three decades of research by economists such as myself has proved otherwise.

A recent survey of over 130 academic studies shows that the direct economic benefits of stadiums fall well short of the enormous infusions of public money used to build them.

Even taking into account non-monetary benefits of sports teams, such as quality-of-life and civic pride, the survey concluded that “the large subsidies commonly devoted to constructing professional sports venues are not justified as worthwhile public investments.”

Giving voters a chance to weigh in

So the knowledge that stadiums are a terrible public investment is nothing new.

Why, then, were efforts to block a stadium successful in Kansas City, while residents of New York and Tennessee were saddled with billions in construction costs for new stadiums?

Most importantly, voters in Kansas City got a direct say in approving the project.

By contrast, Buffalo’s $850 million handout was negotiated in secret by the governor and dropped on unsuspecting taxpayers just days before a final vote was scheduled in the state legislature.

Nashville’s $1.3 billion stadium subsidy was approved by the mayor and Metro Council, not by voters, who could only express their displeasure by throwing the offending government officials out of office during the next election, far too late to stop the project.

It turns out that handing over taxpayer dollars to billionaire owners tends to be far less popular among regular citizens than among well-connected government officials.

An NFL owner trying to curry favor with local government officials can always lay on the charm offensive by, say, inviting them into the owner’s box for games. That strategy doesn’t work when trying to win over an entire electorate.

Owners also tend to overestimate how many sports fans there really are in a community. Even in a relatively small market like Kansas City, fewer than 1 in 30 residents of the metro area are season ticket holders for the Chiefs. A significant majority of the population does not attend a single Royals game in a typical season.

An even smaller fraction of the population has access to VIP seating, yet both Kansas City ownership groups emphasized how the new stadiums would expand these amenities.

Luxury boxes are excellent ways to increase team profits. Public sentiment? Not so much.

Threats to relocate fall flat

Team owners routinely use the tactic of threatening relocation in order to extract subsidies from cities and states. But such threats have tended to produce more resentment than fear, making voter referendums less likely to pass.

In the case of Kansas City, the threat of relocation — halfheartedly hinted at by Chiefs president Mark Donovan — wasn’t taken seriously.

Kansas City is an excellent NFL market with a deeply committed fan base that any sensible owner would be reluctant to abandon. In addition, television revenues in the NFL are equally shared among all teams, meaning that even a relatively small-market team like the Chiefs can afford to pay top dollar to keep its best players, like quarterback Patrick Mahomes and tight end — and Taylor Swift beau — Travis Kelce.

The Royals, with fewer championships and star power, might be a more likely candidate for relocation. But such a move would require finding another city willing to do what voters in Missouri were unwilling to do: provide huge subsidies for a new baseball stadium.

Such cities have proved elusive. The Oakland A’s, unable to convince anyone in the Bay Area to build them a new baseball stadium, recently announced a move to Las Vegas, only to find out that Nevadans weren’t exactly keen to pay for it, either. The team may end up playing the next three years in a minor league stadium in Sacramento, California, while sorting out its next move.

Billionaire team owners have been trying to convince cities to redirect public money to their private companies for decades. But these subsidies primarily benefit the owners through higher revenues and franchise valuations, not the communities paying for the stadiums.

With Jackson County delivering a resounding loss to team owners, perhaps more Americans are finally heeding the words of former Minnesota governor Jesse “The Body” Ventura.

“Stadiums should be like libraries,” he said during a 2001 House Judiciary Committee hearing. “If the taxpayers build it, they should be able to use it for free.”

The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The End Times Begin At Bedminster

Hello, it’s the weekend. This is The Weekender ☕

Before the dust had settled under my and every other shoddily built, six-floor walk-up in Brooklyn Friday, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and other conspiracy theorists of her ilk were already ushering in the end times. 

Continue reading “The End Times Begin At Bedminster”

Jesse Watters’ Token Liberals Include A ‘Pizzagate’ Conspiracy Theorist Who Podcasted With Nazis

The rise of cable news in the early ‘90s was fueled by daring reporters who donned bulletproof vests to cover bombings live on the rooftops of Baghdad. Three decades later, Jesse Watters, the top individual host on Fox News, the country’s most-watched cable channel, is selling audiences a far different concept of front line journalism. For his latest book, which just enjoyed its second week on the New York Times bestseller list after debuting in the top spot at the start of this month, Watters traveled the roughly eight blocks from his network’s Manhattan headquarters to the Port Authority Bus Terminal to interview, as he puts it, “a homeless guy.” 

Watters, who reportedly earns an eight figure salary for his primetime post, assures readers he wore “gloves” and brought along a “security guy” to engage with the man on the street.

This utter lack of bravery and thoughtfulness pervades all 336 pages of “Get It Together,” which is the host’s second bestselling tome. Watters’ book also fundamentally relies on an act of deeply dishonest misdirection. 

The cover promises “troubling tales from the liberal fringe” and Watters purports to deliver on that tantalizing premise with 22 different interviews. However, many of the subjects are not particularly political at all, including the aforementioned “homeless guy,” a “professional cuddler,” a woman who owned an “emotional support” squirrel, a pair of fairly random vegans, an anonymous prostitute, and two preachers, one who practices Voudou and another whose sacrament is a potent psychedelic derived from Mexican toads. 

In fact, some of Watters’ supposed denizens of the “liberal fringe” are not even liberals. One, a heavy drug user, declares, “When I got money, I’m Republican, but when I’m broke, I’m Democrat.” Another is Ayo Kimathi, a Black nationalist extremist who has specifically denounced liberals while focusing on attacking gays and Jews and has recorded streams with neo-Nazi and Klan leaders. Kimathi’s website also indicates one of his signature lectures is a three-DVD series focused on the far-right “Pizzagate” conspiracy theory. 

“I’m the furthest thing possible from a liberal,” Kimathi said in a phone interview with TPM on Friday. “Like every position that I can think of that liberals present, I’m entirely against.” “I’ll just talk frank with it,” he continued. “Liberalism is really the sociopolitical term for Jewish domination, so I’m not in favor of Jewish domination. I’m not a liberal.” 

Watters acknowledges Kimathi’s outreach to white nationalists and refers to the historical context of Black leaders like Marcus Garvey and the Nation of Islam finding common cause with racist groups. However, he does not indicate how this might complicate the book’s larger project and the presentation of Kimathi as an example of liberalism. Indeed, Kimathi says he identifies as “neither” right or left wing and is instead focused solely on what he sees as the real enemy. 

“Left wing, right wing, all of them are under Jewish control,” Kimathi declared. 

Along with some who express some degree of right-wing sympathies, nearly half of Watters’ subjects don’t discuss national politics at all during interviews that instead focus on their personal lifestyles. 

There is a reason the complicated actual ideologies of his interview subjects — or lack thereof — doesn’t matter to Watters. Rather than a real analysis of the real, modern far left, Watters is clearly interested in presenting a caricature of liberalism as a driving force encouraging people to need “emotional support,” cuddles, drugs, and radical expressions of identity like the woman in chapter 12, an “eco-sexual” who dervies pleasure from nature. 

This is an extension of the schtick that fueled Watters’ rise at Fox News in recent years as some of the channel’s more established hosts were felled by scandal. Along with filming a bit that was shockingly racist towards Asians, prior to taking over the network’s 8 p.m. hour last year, Watters was perhaps best known for adversarial ambush interviews and man-on-the-street segments where he presented himself as confronting the left. 

In the introduction to his book, Watters describes the text as a longer form version of his “semi-condescending” television conversations with “wild characters.” His premise hints at something more complex and accurate than the “troubling tales from the liberal fringe” promised on the cover. Rather than simply looking at the left, Watters says he is interested in “radicals.” He also presents his thesis, which is that family trauma, particularly “horrible moms” and absentee “ghost dads,” drove people to live “out of the mainstream” and that these experiences are driving them to press for dangerous social changes to “the pillars of Western civilization.” 

“What I found was that their maverick ideology was rooted in personal struggle,” Watters writes, later adding, “We do not need a social revolution because somebody has personal problems.”

Whether or not you agree with the conservative view that the meat-eating, patriotic, traditional “Western” American culture that Watters continually elevates throughout the book is ideal, the idea of interviewing radicals of all stripes and finding the emotional reasons for their unconventional views is an interesting one. And indeed, that may have been part of what Watters was aiming for. One source who worked on the project said it was the publisher who proposed the “liberal fringe” cover line rather than Watters. However, the problems with Watters’ book extend far beyond that cover line. 

The interviews in Watters’ book are interspersed with asides from the smirking heel persona that he’s made his on air trademark. He repeatedly interjects to mock the people who graciously took the time to speak with him and to pass judgment on their personal choices and lives. This is particularly stunning given Watters’ own exceedingly well-documented personal drama

And sympathy isn’t the only thing missing from Watters’ interviews. Many of the assertions from both Watters and the admittedly “wild” and sometimes “straight-up mentally ill” figures he dialogues with are not contextualized with any real data or research. Apart from Watters’ snarky asides, there is little dividing up the interviews in his book, which is often akin to a transcript with extended block quotes. Along with statistics and empathy, anything resembling quality, readable prose is also strikingly absent from Watters’ narrative. 

A common theory in political science places ideology on a horseshoe-shaped continuum where the far left and far right are closer to each other than to more moderate movements. While a few of Watters’ subjects — including Kimathi and a pair of communists who express admiration for the former Fox News host Tucker Carlson — indicate affinity with right-wing views, Watters doesn’t explore this issue or what it might mean in any depth. He completely ignores the trend we have seen in recent years where people engaged in new-age lifestyles and spirituality have gravitated toward political conspiracy theories and the right. When some of his more apolitical, quirky subjects make statements indicating they might fall in this camp — including expressing frustration with Democrats and COVID safety measures — those comments go completely unaddressed. 

Watters also clearly doesn’t realize that some of his own views are fairly radical. This is on display at multiple points in the book, including when he, at this late point, expresses skepticism about climate change and suggests it could be a “hoax” or when he veers close to QAnon territory by positing that there is a “conspiracy” of “wealthy powerful men … protected at the highest levels” who are systematically abusing children. 

Overall, it’s the selection and framing of the interview subjects that makes clear Watters isn’t interested in nuance or truly tough conversations. Along with presenting a stereotypical and negative view of the left, Watters has provided himself with a series of sparring partners that are easier to take on. He includes no elected leaders or even heads of particularly prominent groups or movements. Instead, readers are treated to a person who supposedly identifies as a wolf and to thoughts on Black Lives Matter from Emily Marnell, a white woman who is perhaps best known for her sister, the writer and 2010s internet figure Cat Marnell.

Most importantly, while supposedly diving deep into radicalism, Watters doesn’t speak with a single person who is unambiguously from the right. This is particularly glaring since he concludes the book by arguing that the trauma-driven extremism is driving a risk of violence. 

“This seems like a dangerous cultural cliff that we’re sprinting toward,” Watters writes in the epilogue. “I see violence coming if we don’t all buckle down.”

The thing is, political violence driven by the fringes has already come — and it wasn’t driven by people using exotic drugs or by furries. And while there was widespread violence and rioting associated with the largely left wing Black Lives Matter protests that gripped the country in 2020, U.S. law enforcement officials have repeatedly made clear that it’s the far right — and particularly white supremacists — that is the most urgent and prevalent threat to national security. A series of violent incidents have been associated with these groups that went ignored by Watters including, most notably, the Jan. 6 attack.

One of Watters’ interviews did touch on the storming of the Capitol, which was the most large-scale and dramatic incident of political violence in modern U.S. history. A Native American activist who helped tear down a statue of Christopher Columbus brought up the attack during his chat with Watters.

“When I saw Jan. 6, I loved it,” the man said. “I love seeing those people, and I thought, ‘My God, this country’s coming to an end, finally.’ I loved it.”

The comment was a clear opportunity for Watters to examine the affinity between the far left and right. However, that would have required acknowledging the extremism and violence on the right in the first place, which Watters is clearly unable — or unwilling — to do. After printing the quote about the Jan. 6 attack, Watters immediately follows it up with a rather telling line showing how eager he is to move on to a more comfortable conversation.

“Let’s get back on track,” he writes.

Final Countdown

We’re at 915 new TPM Members, folks. Just 85 more to go till we meet our goal of 1,000 new TPM Members. Let me pack in some extra encouragement. Please make today the day you sign up to join us, either as a new member or returning one. Just click here. And thank you. It makes a huge, huge difference for our whole operation.

Late Update: 930!

The 3 Worst Aspects Of Aileen Cannon’s Latest Shenanigan

A lot of things happened. Here are some of the things. This is TPM’s Morning Memo. Sign up for the email version.

Come On, Aileen

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon confounded legal experts with her latest ruling, denying Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss the Mar-a-Lago indictment on a crackpot theory based on the Presidential Records Act.

In so doing, Cannon didn’t put the issue to bed, the way you would expect most judges to. Instead she very narrowly ruled against Trump in a skimpy ruling of barely three pages while leaving the door open for him to raise the issue later at trial in a way that could doom the prosecution.

Here’s what I found most concerning:

  • Cannon called the Mar-a-Lago case a “complex case of first impression.” It is neither. It is historically significant because it involves a former president. But legally, the case is not particularly remarkable. Trump’s nonsensical defenses don’t magically turn a relatively straightforward legal matter into a complex or unprecedented puzzle for her to solve. But her treating it as complex and without legal precedent provides an intellectually dishonest framework for all kinds of potential mischief that goes well beyond this one argument over the Presidential Records Act. Cannon can mess this case up in dozens of different ways with that kind of justification.
  • Cannon was defensive. It’s never good when a judge is in a defensive crouch over their judicial skills, the law, or their handling of a case. Cannon’s terse and lightly reasoned ruling came one day after Special Counsel Jack Smith raked her over the coals about her handling of Trump’s attempted use of the Presidential Records Act as a defense. In her ruling, she lashed back at him, mischaracterizing his position on the issue and then deriding it as “unprecedented and unjust.”
  • Cannon didn’t bury Trump’s Presidential Records Act argument for good. Trump’s argument is the kind we often see judges dispense with categorically before trial in order to streamline arguments, eliminate distractions, and keep the case focused and on track. Cannon was not decisive here, giving Trump the chance to raise the PRA defense later, perhaps after a jury has been seated and jeopardy has attached, meaning Smith would have no avenue for appeal. Despite all the commentary you may be seeing, there is no obvious or surefire way for Smith to get around her on this. Risks abound, as does uncertainty.

After every Aileen Cannon post I write, I get lots of questions about why Jack Smith isn’t moving to have her recused, taking her up on appeal already, or doing something else to dislodge her. I can assure you this is highly unusual conduct by a judge in a criminal case, and there are no easy answers here, either legally or practically.

Trump Loses Bid To Dismiss Georgia RICO Case

State Judge Scott McAfee denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his Georgia indictment on spurious First Amendment grounds.

I’m No Saul Goodman!

Despite raising the “I’m no Saul Goodman!” defense, Trump DOJ official Jeff Clark moved one step closer to being disbarred in DC for his participation in the scheme to overturn the 2020 election.

More Please

Arizona Republican Reps. Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs have each been subpoenaed in the fake electors criminal probe being conducted by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, Politico reports.

The Chair Recognizes The Gentleman From Conspiracyland

In a piece taking a close look at the wild Jan. 6 conspiracies being promoted by Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA), the NYT captures the current moment: “[Mo]re than three years after the attack, right-wing Republicans at every level continue to spread falsehoods about what happened on Jan. 6 and are now seeking to use those lies as a rallying cry to denounce the government, promote Mr. Trump’s candidacy and rile up his supporters.”

Quote Of The Week

January 6 must not become a precedent for further violence against political opponents or governmental institutions. This is not normal. This cannot become normal. We as a community, we as a society, we as a country cannot condone the normalization of the January 6 Capitol riot.

U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth of Washington, D.C., an 80-year-old Reagan-appointee who is taking the unusual step of mailing his sentencing statement for a Jan. 6 rioter to nearly two dozen of the defendant’s supporters.

About That Trump Appeal Bond …

Trump’s $175 million appeal bond in the New York civil fraud case may not be sufficient under state law, and Attorney General Letitia James is asking questions.

You Don’t Always Get To Pick Your Battles Or Your Allies

The biggest mind-fuck of the last quarter century in American politics is how the Republican Party’s descent into Trumpian madness has created the unlikeliest of allies in the fight to save democracy:

The Terrible Smearing Of Adeel Abdullah Mangi

Lydia Polgreen: Three Democratic Senators Are Stuck Indulging an Outdated Fantasy

An Important Data Point

The Alabama hospital at the center of the IVF legal battle there will discontinue providing IVF services at the end of this year, which at least partly answers a question floating around for the past few weeks: Was the law passed by Alabama’s legislature to protect IVF from the state Supreme Court decision that frozen embryos are legally considered children sufficient to undo the damage wrought by that ruling?

The Mobile hospital discontinuing IVF attributed the decision to “pending litigation and the lack of clarity of the recently passed I.V.F. legislation in the state of Alabama.”

2024 Ephemera

  • Aaron Blake: Why Trump wants to game Nebraska’s electoral vote, mapped
  • Politico: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. disavows a fundraising email describing Jan. 6 rioters as “activists.”
  • WSJ: No Labels abandons its effort to field a third-party candidate for president.

Biden Calls For ‘Immediate Ceasefire’ In Gaza

TPM’s Josh Marshall: “The killing of seven World Central Kitchen aid workers has over the last two days triggered a wholesale shift across the U.S. political spectrum.”

The Bulwark Of Democracy

Heather Cox Richardson on the 75th anniversary of NATO.

It’s ‘Country’ If I Say It Is

Could anything be in Tressie McMillan Cottom’s wheelhouse more than Beyoncé’s new country music album?

“Big Country — the Nashville-controlled, pop-folk music that commodifies rural American fantasies — is the cultural arm of white grievance politics,” she writes in an extended essay on the musical genre, race and gender, and history and power.

Read it, then check out her Spotify playlist, which covers a lot of very good ground. I’ve been mainlining for a while her combo of classic hits and new stuff, or at least new-to-me stuff. Her playful (yet not) tagline for it is: “Good music is in the liminal spaces between genres. It’s ‘country’ if I say it is. Emphasis on songwriting.”

Do you like Morning Memo? Let us know!

This Election Will Prove If Florida Is Still Winnable For Democrats

Democratic campaign organizations stubbornly insist that Florida is their best Senate pickup opportunity in 2024 — less a booming declaration of confidence, more a reflection of the impossibly tough map. 

But on Monday, the Florida Supreme Court tossed a grenade into the campaign cycle, perhaps scuttling, at least for a year, the politics of a state that many on the left have increasingly written off as too red and getting redder. The court both allowed a constitutional amendment to enshrine abortion rights onto the ballot in November, and upheld a 15-week ban, which will soon give way to a six-week one.

Testing Dobbs’ Juice

The Biden campaign seized on the court’s abortion-related decisions, declaring the state “winnable” on both the Senate and presidential level in a memo distributed to news outlets. 

For the Biden campaign and Senate Democrats, it’s good strategy to act like they think the state is in reach whether or not they actually do; at the very least, they can hope to unnerve Donald Trump and Republicans enough that they feel compelled to burn money there. 

But the Democratic optimists will retort that abortion politics have upended our electoral dynamics since Dobbs, that every single time abortion has been on the ballot since the ruling, it’s won — even in states as red as Kansas and Kentucky. 

Daniel Smith, a voting rights expert at the University of Florida who has researched the effect of other ballot initiatives on election turnout, has found that an initiative in a presidential cycle typically results in a turnout boost of about one percent. Trump won Florida in 2016 by 1.2 percent, and in 2020 by 3.4. 

The turnout bump is “not as great during presidential elections,” Smith told TPM, comparing it to the ballot initiative effect during midterms, when fewer people vote to begin with. “But in this cycle, enthusiasm is not as high as it was in past elections — measures such as these could certainly drive people to the polls who might otherwise sit it out.” 

The Biden campaign centered its Florida pitch on reproductive freedom, tracking with lessons Democrats have learned from other cycles featuring ballot amendments. Florida in particular has a rich history of voting for progressive ballot measures — a minimum wage hike, re-enfranchising people who served out felony sentences — while in the same breath voting for Republican candidates opposed to those things. 

For the left, Michigan and its abortion rights amendment is the anecdote to that troubling pattern. 

“Look at Michigan in 2022: The governor, secretary of state and attorney general ran on both voting rights and reproductive freedom — that was hugely significant,” Chris Melody Fields Figueredo, executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, told TPM.

The implementation of the six-week ban will also likely galvanize voters by moving the threat from the theoretical to the actual. Florida is the second largest abortion provider in the country, according to activists in the state, and was long the only haven in the abortion desert of the southeast. 

‘Designed To Be High’

Yet Florida comes with an extra gauntlet that no other state has had to face: while ballot referenda usually require just a simple majority, Florida has a 60 percent threshold for an initiative to pass. 

That would have been enough to doom the abortion rights proposals in Michigan in 2022 and Ohio in 2023, both of which passed with about 57 percent (ironically enough, Florida’s 60 percent threshold, pushed in part due to opposition from lawmakers and then-Gov. Jeb Bush to a voter-passed initiative to build high-speed rail in the state, passed with 58 percent of the vote).  

Other states have attempted, unsuccessfully, to similarly limit voter power by requiring a supermajority to amend their constitutions. Ohio Republicans tried (and failed) to lift the threshold in a special election cobbled together specifically to thwart the abortion amendment. 

It’s a steep climb. The organizers behind the Florida initiative will have to surpass the work done by abortion advocates in other purple-to-red states. “It’s not only 60 percent, but 60 percent in the third largest state in the country,” said Andrea Mercado, executive director of Florida Rising and one of the organizers behind the ballot initiative.

But Florida organizers have proven themselves adept at building expansive coalitions: The felon re-enfranchisement amendment in 2018 passed with 65 percent and the 2020 minimum wage hike passed with just under 61.

And abortion isn’t your grandmother’s ballot amendment. 

“A 60 percent threshold is high, it’s designed to be high,” Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School and former White House senior policy advisor for democracy and voting rights, told TPM. “But 60 percent is not unachievable for an issue with as much public salience as this one.” 

Guarding Against Republican Interference 

Perhaps the most fundamental question about the abortion amendment is whether state Republicans will let it go into effect, even if it does surpass those imposing hurdles. 

“Never underestimate what the Florida legislature will do when it comes to implementation, even of constitutional amendments,” Smith said. “We’ve seen, time and time again, this effort to thwart the supermajority will of the people.”

After the felon re-enfranchisement amendment passed with a broad mandate, Republican lawmakers quickly passed a law requiring that the reentering civilians pay off a whole host of fines and fees first (while not bothering to create any database for people to find out how much they might owe), and Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) activated “election police” to hunt down those who had registered while wrongly believing they were qualified to do so. DeSantis and other Florida leaders are now being sued for their attempts to thwart the amendment.

Mercado, who also worked on the felony voting amendment, said that the organizers took pains this time to make the amendment as ironclad as possible. 

“It was important for this initiative to have literally dozens of lawyers write the strongest possible language to prevent their ability to undermine the initiative once it passes,” she said. “That’s why the language was crafted the way that it was — we really anticipated every possible thing they could do to undermine the language, then constructed it accordingly.” 

Anti-abortion foes will likely pursue litigation, as well as legislation, to stymy the amendment if it passes. 

“If this were to become part of the Constitution, it will be litigated forever,” Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz said offhand during a hearing on the proposal text. 

Organizers are ready for that too. 

“We know there will be legal attacks and legal strategies — our lawyers are prepared for that,” Mercado said. “We can’t let knowing they will attack us or sue us or legislate stop us from protecting abortion access in the third largest state in the country.”

It’s All Down to Him

The killing of seven World Central Kitchen aid workers has over the last two days triggered a wholesale shift across the U.S. political spectrum. But most particularly and significantly it’s triggered a shift from the White House. Today President Biden called for an “immediate ceasefire” along with comments from other administration officials that elaborate on a broader policy shift. In response now there are cries of betrayal from Netanyahu dead-enders as well as misgivings even from some of Netanyahu’s fiercest critics that the upshot of these events is that Hamas will live to fight another day with its brigades still holding out in Rafah.

But coming to this crossroads, which to me is a very positive development, is really all on the current government in Israel and the man who orchestrates every one of its strategies, Benjamin Netanyahu. Joe Biden has gone to every possible length to support Israel in its quest to destroy Hamas’s military capability after the terrorist paramilitary group invaded Israel with multiple death squads on October 7th. He has done that even through vast destruction to the basic physical infrastructure of Gaza and vast loss of innocent human life. He has maintained this in the face of tremendous geopolitical fallout. He has continued to do this even in the face of real damage to his political standing at home and chances for reelection in November.

Continue reading “It’s All Down to Him”

Indiana Court Gives Win To Group Arguing Religious Freedom Grants Them Right To Abortion

An Indiana appeals court Thursday upheld an injunction for plaintiffs arguing that their religious beliefs entitle them to an exemption from the state’s near-total abortion ban. 

Continue reading “Indiana Court Gives Win To Group Arguing Religious Freedom Grants Them Right To Abortion”

Cannon Denies Trump Presidential Records Act Dismissal Bid For Now

The judge in Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago records case on Thursday denied a motion to dismiss from the former President that had little chance of succeeding, but set the case up for further delay.

Continue reading “Cannon Denies Trump Presidential Records Act Dismissal Bid For Now”

We Need Your Help Today

We need your help for the final stretch of our Annual TPM Membership Drive. We’ve now signed up 858 new members out of our goal of 1,000. One of the benefits of these round numbers is that even I can easily compute the percentage in my head. We’re about 85% of the way there and we are going to pull out all the stops to hit our goal by the end of this week. If you have been thinking of joining during our drive, now is quite literally the time. Remember that in addition to all the direct benefits and supporting our work, we are running a 40% discount for the duration of the drive. So it’s also a good time for that. If you’ve never joined or perhaps let your membership lapse, please take a moment right now to click this link and join us. We all appreciate it.

Late Update: Now 893! We can definitely get past 900 this evening.