This time, the beneficiaries are a couple of former politicians, one who just lost his seat in the last election and another who sacrificed hers in an attempt to secure the top job at City Hall.
Thanks to the party higher-ups who provide taxpayer-paid safety nets, both have landed jobs at the Erie County Board of Elections.
This is wrong.
I don’t see anything in the editorial, however, that tends to prove that assertion. The board recounts how Ted Morton was sanctioned by FINRA, his former industry’s governing body, for improperly borrowing client money. That was known when he first ran for the legislature, and didn’t prevent him from being elected, so I can’t fathom why it would disqualify him from a $40,000 per year job pushing papers at the BOE. But at least with Morton, the News had some sort of malfeasance at which to point; Morton’s ethics are questionable, at best.
What about Betty Jean Grant?
There is no similar accusation that she acted improperly or unethically. By all accounts, she valiantly and competently served her constituents throughout her public career. What did she do wrong? Well, she was two years short from the 20 years in the system she needed for her state pension fully to vest. So, this BOE job helps her stay in so she can retire comfortably.
I think every American should have the right to retire comfortably. Good for Betty Jean.
In September, Betty Jean lost a quixotic primary bid to unseat Mayor Byron Brown. Had she not undertaken that effort or retired from the legislature, she would have easily sailed to a re-election victory. Instead, she’s got a job pushing papers at the BOE.
I don’t know what necessarily qualifies or disqualifies Morton or Grant from serving on the BOE, except that they’re former elected officials who no longer find themselves in office. It looks like the News’ main complaint is that their respective party bosses got them the jobs.
If a party boss can’t get a job for a failed or retired elected who served the people and the party well, what good is he?
With Betty Jean Grant, the Buffalo News doesn’t even go through an exercise in suggesting why Betty Jean Grant shouldn’t be working at the BOE. It’s as if serving in the Legislature for over 10 years automatically disqualifies someone from such a job. How silly.
Even more obnoxious, however, is this:
None of this bothers either political party. If it isn’t the Board of Elections, then it is the Erie County Water Authority. The authority has long been a dumping ground for the unqualified and politically connected who collect fat salaries on the backs of ratepayers.
I know it’s about the water authority and not the Board of Elections, but “dumping ground”? $40,000 is a “fat salary”? To whom? You put trash in the dumping ground, and Betty Jean Grant is most certainly not trash.
Patronage is a problem, sure, but placement of former electeds in jobs that already exist and are already budgeted-for doesn’t especially bother me, and this is not even in the top tier of problems that western New York’s political world faces.
Get back to me when the Buffalo News’ editorial board attacks our inherently corrupt electoral fusion system, rather than heckling former elected officials earning $40,000 in a state job.
The Democrats lost all three countywide races; Mickey Kearns defeated Steve Cichon for clerk, Tim Howard just barely bested Bernie Tolbert for Sheriff, and Stefan Mychajliw dispatched Vanessa Glushefski 55-45. Democrats can take some comfort in the fact that they were competitive in all of these races, and that two newcomers did pretty well against people who are household names. It is funny that we elect the clerk and the sheriff, as these are positions that require their incumbents to be good administrators and little more. The deputies and assistant clerks do the real work, and neither Mr. Howard nor Mr. Kearns will have “setting policy” included in their respective portfolios. It ought not be forgotten, however, that Mr. Howard goes out of his way to sell himself as the guy who will disobey the NY SAFE Act, and will enable his deputies to inquire of people’s immigration status.
The activist groups like SURJ who have worked tirelessly to inform the public about Mr. Howard’s record, with their #fireHoward hashtags and protests and pickets ran into a harsh reality last week. When Tim Howard says he’s going to extra-Constitutionally break the law, or pledges to harass suspected immigrants, or is accused of mismanaging the jails: It’s not just that some Democrats don’t care, but that they like it.
One major takeaway is that registered suburban Democrats are more conservative than their counterparts in the City of Buffalo. Although Democratic turnout was higher this year than in 2013 and 2015, that did not inure to our countywide candidates’ benefit; waking up “lazy” Democrats—2s and 3s—didn’t necessarily help. And when I say “suburban”, I don’t just mean Clarence or Orchard Park. In Lackawanna, Bernie Tolbert won 2,123 to 1,745; but look at wards 3 and 4, and Howard defeated Tolbert 1,198 to 1,042. These are predominately working class white areas where Democrats like Mark Poloncarz easily secure 70% of the vote. In Cheektowaga, Howard defeated Tolbert 9,533 to 7,910—this is a town where 30,000 Democrats outnumber 12,000 Republicans. It’s quite possible that every vote brought out for Democrat John Bruso in Cheektowaga for the 8th Legislative District probably went for Howard three times out of four. In Buffalo’s South District, which is Mickey Kearns’s base of support, Tim Howard defeated Bernie Tolbert 3,399 to 3,010. In this district, Democrats outnumber Republicans by an incredible 10,795 to 2,369.
I can give you some reasons why Tolbert underperformed in those districts, and none of them are pretty. There is a cancer in Western New York, and Trumpism has done a lot to invigorate it.
Mychajliw has crossover appeal, Howard played to prejudices with his pro-guns, anti-immigrant rhetoric, and I honestly don’t know why Cichon lost; that one I don’t get. My first instinct was to suggest that it would make sense for Democrats to appeal to suburban voters by highlighting qualifications and competence, but if that was the case then Cichon—who did just that—would have won. It should be added that Cichon has similar name recognition to Mychajliw, having been a WBEN reporter for many years.
People are looking at city turnout, which was lower than it could have been, and pointing fingers at Democratic HQ and especially at Byron Brown’s machine, which they accuse of not being as aggressive in turning out people to support his former primary opponent, Tolbert, as they could have been. I saw Tolbert on TV on Election Night sporting that “22” button and, at WGRZ, had to explain to people what it meant. Translation:Tthat wasn’t communicated well at all. Tolbert won Masten 4,253 to 189, which sounds like a blowout until you realize that there are 15,198 registered Democrats and 569 Republicans there. If Masten came out 50%, Tolbert almost certainly closes his gap with Howard. In the University District, Tolbert received 4,102 to 573 with a Democratic enrollment advantage of 13,294 to 1,121. GOP turnout was better despite there being zero turnout effort.
LD-8
Ted Morton’s horrible, lying, racist direct mail didn’t work. His use of the American flag as a wedge issue didn’t work. One reader analyzed the numbers in the Bruso vs. Ted Morton race in the 8th Legislative District, and comes up with some hopeful news. In 2016, LD-8 was “Trump Country,” and Trump received 57.3% to Clinton’s 36.4%. This district includes all of Lancaster and Alden, and some of Cheektowaga. If Morton received only 48% of the vote, he underperformed Trump by a almost a full 10%, and this speaks to how significant that win is. The Democrats regain (for now) a majority in the legislature.
LD-10
The desperate last-minute Republican efforts to smear newcomer activist Michelle Schoeneman prove she was scaring the crap out of someone. Incumbent Joseph Lorigo, son of Ralph and Conservative fusion Party gadfly had his first real competitive race since easing his way into office, and it was closer than most expected. West Seneca is the epicenter of the Lorigos’ political influence, so you should know that Schoeneman beat Lorigo there 6,318 to 6,160, and 2,193 to 2,120 in Aurora. Lorigo’s margin of victory is thanks to Elma, Wales, Holland, and Marilla. Schoeneman lost, but she put up an incredible fight against an outrageously influential political dynasty.
Amherst Town Races
In sleepy Amherst, Democrats swept the town council and supervisor’s races. Here, Erie County Republican Committee Chairman Nick Langworthy’s wife, Erin Baker, was running in her first election. Her fundraising for a town council race is simply jaw-dropping. In her July disclosure, Baker reports receipts between March and May 2017 of $50,679 in individual and partnership donations. Another $4,474 came from corporate donations, including $2,000 from “Stirling Lubricants” of Rochester. Another $6,943 came from PACs and other local campaign treasuries. Baker’s husband, ECGOP Chair Nick Langworthy, made an approximately $800 in-kind donation by fronting the cost of some campaign swag, and attorney Jeff Bochiechio provided $1,600 in food for Baker’s May fundraiser, totaling $2,488. Finally, the Eden and Buffalo GOP Committees contributed $150. The tl;dr is that for an Amherst town council race, Ms. Baker raised an astonishing $64,700 in her first ever financial disclosure, and had spent about $8,000 during the first seven months of 2017. This includes the cost of her fundraisers, her $250 payoff to secure the “Independence” fusion Party line.
In her 32-day pre-primary report, Baker’s campaign bought her lawn signs, bought some ads in the Elma Review, and made some contributions to various non-profit fundraisers, totaling about $5,000. She also transferred $5,500 to the county GOP committee, and $2,500 to the Amherst committee. An August 22 fundraiser netted Baker’s campaign $9,654 from individuals and partnerships, $500 from corporations, $1,005 from PACs and other campaigns, and $500 transferred in from the Niagara County GOP Committee. Expenditures were a mere $1935, mostly to secure the Williamsville Anchor Bar for the fundraiser. Eleven days before the primary, Baker had $53,620 on hand.
In her 10-day post-primary report, about $1,050 trickled in from individuals, and $350 from corporate and campaign donors. Her campaign sent $12,250 to the Erie County Republican committee, and spent only $544 on some other campaigns’ fundraisers and meeting expenses. Going into the general election, Baker had $42,226 on hand for her Amherst town council race.
In her report 32 days before the general election, Baker only reported $1,950 in various contributions, and expenditures of $1,593, leaving $42,582. Things pick up, however, in the 10-day pre-general report, with an October 13 fundraiser bringing in a total for that period of $9,532, and spending just over $15,000; $13,000 of that went into the coffers of the Republicans’ county committee. In the last report before the election, Baker had just over $37,000 to spend.
She lost, and although she came in third in a field of five, she was the lowest recipient of Republican votes; that $250 spent for the “Independence” fusion Party line got her 750 votes.
Here’s why the money in Baker’s race is so incredible: Let’s look at the largest recipient of votes, Jacqui Berger. In July, she reported just under $3,000 on hand. Her pre-primary reports show her balance topping out at around $4,200, and dropping to $1,100 right before the primary. Her 10-day post-primary report shows she raised another $1800, and she had a total of $2,774 on hand. Berger raised another $2680 and spent just under $2000, according to her 32 day pre-general report, leaving a balance of $3473. In the 11 day pre-general report, she added $3392, spent $8,000, leaving $2,338 going into election day; in her last disclosure, she had less than one tenth of the money Baker had.
Erin Baker raised $89,270, spent $52,178 (including over $33,250 she transferred out to various other party committees), and received 13,121 votes on all party lines. Jacqui Berger raised $17,877, spent $14,538, and received 14,418 votes on all party lines. Neither Berger nor her Democratic counterpart, Shawn Lavin, received the Conservative fusion Party line, which this year in Amherst was good for about 2,700 votes in total. So, Jacqui Berger’s campaign spent a little over $ per vote while Erin Baker’s campaign spent $1.44 per vote if you don’t include the transfers out. She spent $4 per vote if you do.
By the way, town Conservative fusion Party chairman Bill Kindel kept the C line from Joe Spino, keeping it for himself. Had Spino received that C line, he’s not likely to have won, but he’d have at least outperformed Baker. Neither the C nor I lines in Amherst did anything for anyone, and no one in town government owes those two entities anything. Town patronage hires are likely looking to get their affairs in order.
Now What?
I don’t know what the answer is for the Democrats’ issues. It has nothing to do with “OMG pwn the librulz” or the red rose brigade or Hillary or Bernie. Some point to city turnout, and I’ve seen quite a few people on Facebook opine about the need for some new party to launch competitive races in the November election. We have plenty of parties already, and everyone can ask Mayor Sergio Rodriguez—not to mention Anita Howard or Terrence Robinson—all about that. We have to come to that reckoning that we have two Democratic parties in Erie County, and we have to figure out how to appeal to them both. The Poloncarz example is illustrative here: Mark is great at his job, he is smart, and whether you agree with him or not, you are likely to at least think that whatever he does is motivated by a sense of doing right by Erie County’s taxpayers. Mark is also not afraid to get into it with hecklers and take strong opinions, and then back them up. This isn’t, in the end, a challenge of ideas.
The campaign run on behalf of Republicans in Erie County this past year was outrageous and obnoxious. None of these races was about patriotism or respect for cops or the flag or the troops/ It’s not enough to link Republican candidates in suburban races with Trump and Paladino, because, frankly, Trump and Paladino are pretty popular, whether you like that or not. Linking Kearns with Paladino drew a shrug from voters. Turning out “lazy” Democrats also, as it happens, turned out a lot of reactionary registered Dems.
Is the solution to this to go even further to the left? I don’t think so, and ditto some shift to the center or right. This isn’t about ideology, but about marketing. Yet Kearns won even with that comical ad in the boxing ring, where he’s going to “fight” whilst filing people’s paperwork .
Finally, if we are to have electoral fusion, then Democrats need to be aggressive with it. Republicans and Conservatives are busy registering as Greens and Independents to influence those lines. Democrats can, generally speaking, rely only on the Working Families Party, a sort of labor imprimatur. For so long as fusion exists in New York, Democrats have to learn to play the game with creativity and ruthlessness.
Amherst showed that money isn’t always the number one factor, and that sometimes the impossible can happen. The people of Western New York deserve good, responsive government that provides a good balance between taxation, services, and getting out of our way.
Shown above is the flip side of your SAT-formatted Scantron New York State ballot. Be sure to flip over the ballot and mark these three referendum questions.
These are not endorsements by the staff or editors of the Public: these are my opinions alone.
Question 1: Constitutional Convention
Every 20 years, the electorate is asked whether it wants to convene a Constitutional Convention. Practically every single influence group in Albany – especially the public sector unions – are calling for a “no” vote, and so has Governor Cuomo. Yet here’s what Cuomo said at the Democratic Convention in Rye Brook in 2010:
Deeds, not words, to clean up Albany. Need a people’s constitutional convention to change the rules. #nydemcon#Cuomo
Now he says he’s against it. So is every person and group that has an interest in preserving Albany’s status quo. I believe Albany is broken and this hurts New Yorkers in every region, of every class, race, and political persuasion.
I have been writing about Albany dysfunction for over a decade, and literally no one in Albany has really undertaken any serious reform of the way in which that town works. (See: Moreland Commission). Dissolving that Moreland Commission wasn’t illegal, but it was disgusting to me that its existence could be ended so cavalierly as a bargaining chip in budget negotiations. I consider anti-corruption reform to be important enough to carry through without regard to day-to-day political expediency. NYU’s Brennan Center pretty much provided a roadmap to reform years ago, to no meaningful avail.
I tweeted this last week:
I’m voting yes on the NYS Constitutional Convention because Albany. is. broken., and it’s because of the person there whom you like.
Even the guy you like is part of the problem in Albany, and there exists no political will to change it. Albany is a place incumbents generally depart only in chains or disgrace. Things like three (four?) men in a room, the way in which Albany’s legislative bodies are seldom genuinely deliberative, unfunded mandates, the abuse of public Authorities in order to render opaque public funding and borrowing: all of these things contribute to New York’s difficulties, especially upstate.
I have written countless times about the fundamental corruption of New York’s electoral fusion system, whereby microscopically small political “parties” cross-endorse major party candidates to fool the populace and/or to secure patronage favors. It’s enough: no more Wilson-Pakulas, no more fusion, no more tricking people who want to register as “unenrolled” to register for the rudderless, meaningless “Independence Party”.
There is a lot of propaganda scaring people about how awful the Constitutional Convention would be, but don’t forget:
If a majority statewide votes “yes,” a constitutional convention will be set for the spring of 2019. The convention would be made up of elected delegates, with three provided from each state senate district — there are 63 in total — plus fifteen statewide. Elections would occur next year, and anyone can run to be a delegate.
These delegates would come together with unlimited abilities to propose amending the constitution in any and all ways they can agree upon. Any amendments approved by delegates would need to be ultimately approved by the voters. This is important to remember: No changes can occur to the constitution without statewide approval at the ballot box.
2019 would be the first Constitutional Convention since 1967, and nothing came of that – voters rejected every proposal that came along.
Good Government group Citizen’s Union has advocated in favor of a Constitutional Convention. I once wrote a series of articles advocating for New York to adopt a Nebraska-style non-partisan, unicameral legislature. I still think that Albany needs to serve its constituents better, and that Albany needs to stop relying on county and local governments to raise taxes to pay for its mandates, and figure out ways to fund its own plans from the state at-large. I believe that state service entities such as the DOT, the MTA, and Thruway Authority need to be more transparent and modernize in order to better serve the public.
If there was a genuine movement to reform Albany and the way it does business, I’d probably think that a Constitutional Convention was unnecessary. There isn’t, so I don’t.
Question 2: Felony and Pensions
This proposal asks you whether you think it’s ok that a public official who is convicted of – and removed from office – for a felony relating to the performance of his official duties should lose his rights to a state pension. Think Sheldon Silver taking over $4 million to influence his actions as a legislative leader. I’m for it, but it’s just window-dressing. Sheldon Silver’s and Joe Bruno’s convictions were overturned on appeal because the Supreme Court in a 2016 Virginia case made it extremely difficult – if not impossible – to successfully prosecute these types of bribery cases.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the court, narrowed the definition of what sort of conduct can serve as the basis of a corruption prosecution. He said only formal and concrete government actions counted — filing a lawsuit, say, or making an administrative determination. Routine political courtesies like arranging meetings or urging underlings to consider a matter, he added, generally do not, even when the people seeking those favors give the public officials gifts or money.
That still leaves prosecutors plenty of room to pursue classic bribery and kickbacks. But there was widespread agreement among prosecutors and defense lawyers on Monday that the decision would make it harder for the government to prove corruption.
QUESTION 3: FOREST PRESERVE LAND
New York’s massive forest preserves (Catskills, Adirondacks, e.g.) have a mandate to preserve wild land but also accommodate people and businesses who live and work there. It’s a delicate balancing act, but this creation of a land bank would make it easier for municipalities to make changes for health and safety. From the measure’s summary:
New York State’s Constitution protects the State’s forest preserve as wild forest land and generally prohibits the lease, sale, exchange, or taking of any forest preserve land. The proposed amendment will create two new exceptions to this broad protection of the forest preserve to make it easier for municipalities to undertake certain health and safety projects.
First, the proposed amendment will create a land account of up to 250 acres of forest preserve land. A town, village, or county can apply to the land account if it has no viable alternative to using forest preserve land for specified health and safety purposes. These purposes are (1) to address bridge hazards or safety on specified highways; (2) to eliminate the hazards of dangerous curves and grades on specified highways; (3) to relocate, reconstruct, and maintain highways; and (4) for water wells and necessary related accessories located within 530 feet of a specified highway, where needed to meet drinking water quality standards. The State will acquire 250 acres to add to the forest preserve to replace the land placed in the health and safety land account, subject to approval by the Legislature,
Second, the proposed amendment will allow bicycle paths and types of public utility lines to be located within the widths of specified highways that cross forest preserve land. The work on the bicycle paths and utility lines must minimize the removal of trees and vegetation. The proposed amendment will allow a stabilization device (such as a guy wire) for an existing utility pole to be located near the width of a highway when necessary to ensure public health and safety and when no other viable option exists. The proposed amendment prohibits the construction of a new intrastate gas or oil pipeline that did not receive necessary state and local permits and approvals by June 1, 2016.
Sierra Club urges a “yes” vote on Prop 3, and so do I.
Polls are open until 9pm, and I will be on WGRZ Channel 2 tonight to provide commentary. Turnout is key today, so make sure you and everyone you know gets out to vote.
Since everyone has a short memory nowadays, what with your iPhones and e-devices, here’s a little trip down memory lane.
It’s 2011, and Joe Lorigo is running for County Legislature against Christina Bove. Bove was an acolyte of federal indictee Steve Pigeon’s who flipped her allegiance during the Erie County Legislature mini-coup of ’09 to enable the minority Republicans to have a de facto legislative majority in order to help propel Tim Kennedy to the State Senate, and to sell out to then-County Executive Chris Collins.
(WEST SENECA, NY) – Republican, Conservative and Independence candidate for Erie County Legislature Joseph Lorigo has had enough. After running a campaign based entirely on issues important to the voters in the 10th District, he called out his opponent today after she placed newspaper ads, mailed letters and organized anonymous voter calls – all mocking his family.
“Christina Bove has crossed the line in this campaign by insulting my family over and over again,” Lorigo said. “I have not and never will bring her family into this race because I know voters want to hear about the issues, not the malicious carping we’ve all grown so tired of in Erie County politics.”
Bove holds no job except her part-time employment as a County Legislator. In stark contrast, Lorigo is a respected attorney with an MBA and law degree from the State University at Buffalo. He is a family man devoted to working for the taxpayers as a public service.
“Bove is a career politician who does nothing but connive behind the scenes to advance her career at the expense of Erie County taxpayers,” Lorigo said. “The voters of the new 10th District are far more interested in Bove’s 154 votes to raise our taxes – and my commitment to hold the line on taxes – than in my family or hers.”
“I am proud of my mother, my father and all the members of my family. Christina Bove may not respect family values, but I wouldn’t be where I am today without their love, guidance and devotion,” Lorigo said. “Bove waited until the final days of this campaign to attack my family because as a career politician she will do or say anything to get re-elected.”
“I will not stoop to the low-level tactics of Bove’s low-class campaign, now or ever,” Lorigo said. “The voters of the 10th District can rest assured that after they vote for me on Tuesday and elect me to the County Legislature her mean-spirited political games will end and the work of the people will begin.”
A lot of that 2011 press release hasn’t aged well.
So, Schoeneman accused Lorigo of lying and defaming her, and filed a “summons with notice” commencing a lawsuit against him for defamation. A summons with notice is missing a key component of a lawsuit – a formal complaint. In New York practice, a defendant served with a summons with notice demands that the plaintiff serve a complaint, which they have 20 days to do. In Schoeneman’s case, she particularized the alleged defamation within the summons with notice.
“This is nothing more than a stunt,” said Lorigo, the Legislature majority leader, adding that Schoeneman has made personal attacks against him and his family and false accusations about him. “If anyone is defaming anyone it’s Michelle Schoeneman.”
Is it a campaign stunt? Most assuredly. That doesn’t, however, mean it is without merit. Libel is a written defamation – a false statement of fact. In this case, alleging that Schoeneman said in a public forum that she wants to put publicly funded heroin shooting galleries near schools or the “cider mill”. She didn’t.
No one would know whether this is a “stunt” better than Lorigo himself.
In 2011, when then-candidate Lorigo accused incumbent Christina Bove of being mean about his mom and dad, he didn’t just issue the press release shown above. He had his dad file and serve a summons with notice agianst Bove for defamation. From my 2011 Endorsement column:
District 10: No Endorsement: I will not endorse Christina Bove, as she helped create the de facto Collins majority in the legislature as a consummate follower and “what’s in it for me” type politician. On the other hand, the Lorigo name should be drummed out of our collective body politic, firstly by abolishing the family nest egg that’s built upon the hyper-corrupt electoral fusion system. Lorigo’s efforts to bully Bove by having daddy file a $3MM defamation suit over an ad in – of all things – the f’king PENNYSAVER, takes pettiness to a whole new level – the fact that this prominent law firm can’t even be bothered to actually file and serve a Summons and Complaint, with the alleged libel plead with the requisite particularity, instead relying on the lazy lawyer’s “Summons with Notice”, which gives them indignant headlines and nothing else.
So, their whining today about Schoeneman’s “stunt” is delightfully hypocritical. Now Lorigo’s campaign is sending out a mailer – part of which is visible above – that purports to be from Schoeneman’s campaign and solicits recipients to harass her over a wholly manufactured, made-up lie.
Bonus points for Joe’s mom defending him in the Buffalo News’ putrid comments section in this now-deleted post:
LOL at the wife of the chairman of a local fusion party calling anyone a “puppet” of anyone. At least Schoeneman brought her own lawsuit, and didn’t have a family member do her dirty work for her.
I will not stoop to the low-level tactics of Bove’s low-class campaign, now or ever…[t]he voters of the 10th District can rest assured that after they vote for me on Tuesday and elect me to the County Legislature her mean-spirited political games will end and the work of the people will begin.”
Someday, Republican / Conservative Fusion Party candidate for County Clerk Michael “Mickey” Kearns will tell you he’s a Democrat.
When that day comes, show him this.
Ask “Mickey” Kearns which Democratic values he holds.
Ask him about a woman’s right to choose. Ask him about same-sex marriage. Ask him about whether he’d allow unfettered ownership and possession of any and all firearms by any person present in the United States. Ask him to cite the jurisdiciction, law, statute, or regulation enabling a county clerk to have anything whatsoever to do with “illegal immigration” or abortion rights.
With this one flyer, Kearns has forever and completely foreclosed for himself the right to call himself a Democrat – centrist, liberal, or otherwise. He’s just a craven opportunist.
It was a sleepy primary election night, except for one thing: This is the way Pigeonism ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.
Buffalo Mayor
Byron Brown cruised to victory Tuesday night, easily defeating challenges from Mark Schroeder and Betty Jean Grant. Only about 26,000 Buffalo Democrats decided the whole thing for the remaining 90% of city residents. It’s almost comical to call that an election. In the end, because things are, generally, speaking, better in Buffalo since Byron Brown became Mayor over a decade ago, the challengers’ criticisms simply weren’t compelling enough for 10% of Buffalonians to make a dramatic change. Mayor Brown won with 13,346 votes or 51% of the vote. Schroeder received 36% and Betty Jean Grant received 13%. Expect, as they say, more of the same.
2nd Legislative District
Newcomer April Baskin, the endorsed Democrat, defeated former Buffalo at-large councilman Charley Fisher, newcomer David Martinez, and the Buffalo News’ endorsee, Duncan Kirkwood. Baskin pulled in 34% in that 4-way race to replace Betty Jean Grant in the Erie County Legislature. Politically speaking, Martinez and Fisher both had support from what’s left of the Steve Pigeon club. Literature the two campaigns sent out in the last few weeks was almost identical in form and content – identical, too, to literature that their star Kristy Mazurek sent out last year. You can see images here. There was an effort in LD-2 to turn not just Baskin, but Democratic HQ and Jeremy Zellner, into losers. It failed pretty miserably – their game didn’t work. Baskin, like Mayor Brown, will be unopposed in November.
Cheektowaga
In a 4-way race for three available town council seats, former local Bernie Sanders organizer Brian Nowak was the top vote-getter; an impressive rookie outing for a newcomer. Nowak worked hard on a shoestring and his message evidently resonated with the electorate. Deputy Supervisor Timothy Meyers received the 2nd-largest vote tally, with incumbent Jim Rogowski rounding out the top three. The big loser was incumbent Alice Magierski, who received about 44 fewer votes than Rogowski. It’s possible that 203 outstanding absentee ballots may swing some more votes to Ms. Magierski, but the absentee margin usually mirrors that of the election day total, making it unlikely that she’ll return to the town council. Magierski was stung by a negative mailer in the waning days of the campaign that outed her for “double-dipping”, receiving a state pension in addition to her councilmember salary. As it did in LD-2, Magierski’s loss deals yet another blow to what’s left of the Pigeonistas and Frank Max acolytes.
Hamburg
Jim Shaw won the Democratic primary for town supervisor, defeating Dennis Gaughan, who already has the Republican and Conservative fusion lines.
Republicans
Republicans seldom do primaries. By and large, they do whatever Nick Langworthy tells them to do, including last night in Amherst, where Langworthy’s wife will be on the November ballot for town council. The Republicans rely instead on getting themselves on the Independence and Conservative lines, and honestly who cares. These minor party lines exist to dole out jobs to their memberships and nothing more, acting politically as appendages or puppets of the Republican committee.
In a Buffalo News column Thursday, Conservative fusion Party boss Ralph Lorigo laments that “Erie County Democrats have abandoned the working class”. For the uninitiated, New York’s system of electoral fusion enables petty party bosses like Lorigo to wield political and – more critically – patronage power that is wildly disproportionate to the actual size of their party committees.
Lorigo’s column, which is little more than a poorly concealed piece of campaign literature for right wing county clerk candidate Mickey Kearns, is one big concern troll. That’s defined as, “a person who disingenuously expresses concern about an issue with the intention of undermining or derailing genuine discussion.” The Urban Dictionary’s entry is even more explicit:
In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with “concerns”. The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you’re an ally. Concern trolls who use fake identities are sometimes known as sockpuppets.
In his column, Lorigo purports to lament how the Erie County Democratic Committee, as led locally by Jeremy Zellner and Mark Poloncarz, has somehow “abandoned” the working class. Ralph Lorigo is no Democrat; he doesn’t speak for Democrats. He and his little reactionary club do not hold, espouse, or promote Democratic ideas or values. More to the point, his fusion party – a product of a pointless, fundamentally corrupt party system in New York – is no friend of the working class, Democrat or otherwise.
There are 287,000 registered Democrats in Erie County. Lorigo’s little club boasts 13,169 registered members. So, where does Lorigo get off lecturing the Democratic Party committee, its chairman, and its most prominent local elected official about Democratic values? The only reason he has any clout at all is thanks to a structural legal aberration.
The only reason a political club with 13,000 members has any pull at all is electoral fusion; it seldom puts up its own party members for election. Instead Lorigo’s group endorses a major party candidate – e.g., Mickey Kearns – who receives a “Wilson Pakula“, allowing him to run on the Conservative line, and those votes are added to the candidate’s total. In some cases, the vote is close enough that these cross-endorsements actually affect the outcome. The catch? LOL, when it comes to the so-called “Independence Party” and the Conservative fusion Party, that endorsement doesn’t come for free, or without strings. The connected get jobs.
I have been involved in Erie County Conservative politics for over 35 years, and have served as the chairman of the party for 23. I have never taken a salary, stipend or even a reimbursement from party funds for political activities. In addition, no government funds flow into my law office from any governmental source.
The power isn’t in receiving government funds, but in controlling jobs – the molten, glowing core of western New York politics. How many jobs does Lorigo’s club control? How many people in local, state, or county positions owe their livelihoods to Conservative fusion Party patronage? That is the proper metric, here, and it is conspicuously absent.
As chairman, I have worked with both Democrats and Republicans to endorse and elect people who care about Erie County taxpayers. My executive committee and I look at a candidate’s platform, record and the office sought. We never assume that someone’s party registration fully defines one; and we know that not every elected office legislates or creates policy.
What emetic pablum to suppose that someone running for office doesn’t “care about Erie County taxpayers”. Especially in any election since 2005’s red/green budget fiasco, which happened under Conservative fusion Party endorsee Joel Giambra‘s watch.
We work to apply our principles of smaller, smarter government to the candidates seeking our support. We then choose who will best carry that torch for the residents of Erie County. For the Erie County Conservative Party, this is not about party labels, but about principles. As long as I am chairman, that approach will continue.
More often than not, the Conservative fusion Party would conspire with Democrat Steve “the Splitter” Pigeon to endorse Democrats who didn’t have the support of Democratic Headquarters. Even if that person lost a Democratic primary, he still might appear on the ballot in November on Lorigo’s line, causing further worries for the endorsed Democrat. Pigeon is now gone, and his stragglers are beclowning themselves in the 2nd Erie County Legislature district race – a story for another time.
My relationship with Democrats is not in trouble. In fact, the top of our ticket this year is Democrat Mickey Kearns for county clerk. In the past, we were proud to support Democrats such as Jimmy Griffin, Paul Tokasz, Dennis Gorski and countless others. They were conservative, pro-life, taxpayer-focused Democrats.
Jimmy Griffin died in 2008. Paul Tokasz hasn’t been an elected official since 2006. Until he became a town justice in Cheektowaga a couple of years ago, Dennis Gorksi had been out of public life since 1999. Mickey Kearns may be a lot of things, but he’s no Democrat. You don’t run in 2017 with the endorsements only of the Republicans and Conservative fusion Parties and get to call yourself that. Apparently, Republican party chair Nick Langworthy’s bench was too shallow to support a genuine Republican candidate for county clerk to succeed Senator Chris Jacobs. So? Recruit an opportunistic “Democrat” with the dearth of accomplishments or ideas. There are some glaring omissions from Lorigo’s recitation of “Democrats I heart”: G. Steven Pigeon. I wonder why? Joe Mascia? Chuck Swanick?
Today’s Democratic Party leadership of Chairman Jeremy Zellner and Mark Poloncarz would reject those officials outright. It is clear that conservative values of any kind are no longer welcome at Erie County Democratic Party headquarters.
Lorigo’s closest Democratic friend Steve is in big federal and state criminal trouble, and Poloncarz won re-election in 2015 after having explicitly refused to seek or accept the Conservative fusion Party line. Which “conservative values” is Lorigo talking about, exactly? Is it Swanick’s homophobia? Mascia’s colorful racial outbursts?
In spite of the ever-increasing sprint to the extremes, the Erie County Conservative Party will remain true to our platform, right here in the middle with the majority of Erie County voters; people who believe in common-sense ideas like: taxes are too high; criminals belong in jail; police should be respected; law-abiding gun owners are not the root of our crime problem; plastic bags should be legal; and 5-year-olds don’t need to be taught about sex reassignment surgery in kindergarten.
“Taxes are too high” and this patronage club is part of the problem. “Criminals belong in jail” reads like a Dick and Jane book. “Police should be respected”, except when they violate the laws and constitution. Gun ownership isn’t at risk. Plastic bags should be “legal” and cost a nickel, because they don’t degrade and there are better alternatives available. Can you imagine you use “plastic grocery bags” as a rallying cry for a political movement? How pathetic.
Hey, Ralph Lorigo: please identify which Erie County school – public or private – teaches “5-year-olds” about “sex reassignment surgery” in “kindergarten”. I’d like to know the school, the textbook, and the teacher. Because it’s just gutter, hateful lies meant to get a rise out of the homophobes; literally, that’s all that is. And why haven’t you added why and how you pick and choose which pro-choice candidates you endorse, or candidates who support same-sex marriage? The idea that the Conservative fusion Party operates based on “principles” is laughable. The only principle is maximizing the quids for an endorsement pro quo.
Sadly, if you agree with just one of those principles today, you don’t have a place in the Democratic Party of Zellner and Poloncarz.
They aren’t really “principles” as much as they are bumper sticker slogans. Lorigo’s club’s real principles might involve homophobia, criminalization of all abortion, and ensuring that everyone from children to the mentally ill have the unfettered right to possess a loaded gun; that is, unless, a candidate who opposes all or some of those makes a great offer or is an acolyte of Steve Pigeon’s.
I can’t help but think about the Democratic Party when I started 36 years ago. Back then, the majority of Democrats I encountered crossed party lines to support Ronald Reagan. Now, the party of the working class has been replaced by ivory tower elitists who hate anyone with a different opinion.
Ronald Reagan, whose policies helped to hasten the destruction of America’s middle class? For the record, Mark Poloncarz grew up in Lackawanna; his dad worked in a steel mill, and his mom was a nurse. Jeremy Zellner lives modestly in Tonawanda with his family; his dad worked in a car factory. Meanwhile, the Lorigo family practically runs West Seneca from its law office, hobnobs with Donald gold toilet 757 Trump and endorses Spaulding Lake’s own Chris Collins, and he’s sitting there talking about “ivory tower elitists”. This is utter madness, and the “different opinion” quip is nothing but projection.
Erie County residents vote for lower taxes, smarter spending and a government built to assist them with jobs, better roads and affordable services; all principles the Erie County Conservative Party champions.
LOL “assist them with jobs”. How true.
The leaders of the Erie County Democratic Party may have taken a hard left, but Erie County Democrats have not.
Being opposed to the Republican clone party that has close ties to Steve Pigeon and Carl Paladino isn’t a “hard left”. It’s common sense and decency.
The Conservative fusion Party purports to have principles, but it’s just an arm of the Republicans; a party so unpopular in New York State that it needs to control a bunch of extra fusion lines to win the occasional election. Its platform is made up of all the WBEN bogeymen – anti-choice, anti-LGBT, anti-gun control. It is the party that thinks “black lives matter” is a terrorist group and fully supports the Trump Administration.
So, is Lorigo’s relationship with Democrats in trouble? Quite simply, no such relationship should exist; it is right that he has to omit the indictees, the racists, and has to resort to Mickey Kearns and the deceased to underscore his purported bipartisanship. Democrats need to stop going to breakfasts with Lorigo, and they need to reject the Conservative Party fusion line. It is the antithesis of what is actually “conservative”. Meritocracy is anathema to it. Good government is beside the point – it’s about jobs.
The highest and best use of electoral fusion for Democrats right now would be to start a “Freedom Liberty Gun-Eagle” fusion party line to out-conservative Lorigo’s and further use the system to confuse voters.
Anyway, thanks, Ralph. Democrats are all set. You may speak for the reactionary hatred of some who can’t deal with gay people having rights, but we Democrats will fight for the working class by promoting univeral health coverage, protecting union membership, implementing a higher minimum wage, paid family and medical leave, and other policies and programs that actually help people, rather than facile talk radio slogans.
Tuesday morning, the Buffalo News reported that three members of a disgraced faction of nominal Democrats would be facing felony election law charges to be announced in a Buffalo courtroom today.
G. Stephen Pigeon is already facing state charges alleging he bribed a state Supreme Court Justice—the judge pled guilty and is awaiting sentencing. Kristy Mazurek is a former journalist who hosted WGRZ’s 2Sides program with various Republicans. She has managed or otherwise participated in a string of failed races for elective office, including her brother’s race for Assembly in 2014, and her own Assembly bid last year. David Pfaff has hopped around political jobs, most recently working in the office of former State Senator Marc Panepinto. Pfaff has a reputation for being rather competent when working in government, but his ties to Pigeon have led him to be involved in more than a few controversial races.
When Pigeon and former Supreme Court Justice John Michalek were placed under arrest, I wrote, “There has to be more. I suspect that the Michalek bribery case is just the amuse bouche — the low-hanging, easy to reach fruit that can be pushed through quickly to reassure an impatient public that progress is being made. All the while, law enforcement continues to build its other cases against Pigeon and others. Pass the popcorn, because we’re just watching the trailers.”
Well, take your seats and silence your cell phones, because it looks like the feature’s just starting.
One source familiar with the charges say they will revolve around the County Legislature candidacies of Richard A. Zydel and Wes Moore, as well as the Amherst supervisor candidacy of Council Member Mark A. Manna.
That means the Pigeon troika are being charged with crimes arising out of the 2013 handling of the WNY Progressive Caucus, which I contemporaneously referred to as “AwfulPAC”. I also coined the word “Pigeoning” as shorthand to describe the sorts of shenanigans in which Steve Pigeon and his associates would engage in races that mosty served only to harass and disrupt the electoral efforts of other Democrats.
Pigeoning: pi·geon·ing ˈpi-jən-iŋ: (n) the action of using money and influence, oftentimes pushing the election law envelope, to actively sabotage and undermine the Erie County Democratic Committee.
The Pigeon crew would often secure the assistance—tacit and overt—of Republicans, but more frequently the execrable and obsequious fusion parties — “Independence” and “Conservative” alike — to conspire with Pigeon to advance not just candidates, but their committees’ access to patronage jobs.
Blindside the party’s endorsed candidate with a sudden and unexpected influx of expensive mailers, robocalls, and ads that defame them, or worse. Fund it through various and sundry LLCs set up for no other reason than to legally flaunt campaign finance rules. Set up PACs or independent committees whose funding and organization is sketchy, at best, or criminal, at worst. Conspire fusion party bosses, for whom influence over patronage hires regularly trumps any manufactured, elastic ideological tenets.
Nothing that the Pigeon crew ever did brought about real reform or good government. Nothing they touched had anything to do with policy, or helping the community — it was all about enriching Pigeon and the pilot fish who clung to him. Western New Yorkers of every party, of every race, of every nationality, of every class deserve so much better than what Pigeon and his cult offered.
AwfulPAC was only active for a very short period of time—most of what it did took place between July and September of 2013. In May 2015, state and federal agents executed three nearly simultaneous raids on the homes of Pigeon, former Chris Collins chief of staff Chris Grant, and former Buffalo deputy mayor Steve Casey. I dubbed this law enforcement action and investigation “Preetsmas,” after the former US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara. Bharara had famously taken over the investigation of political corruption cases abandoned by the Moreland Commission when Governor Cuomo abruptly shut it down.
AwfulPAC wasn’t even properly constituted; it filed its CF-02 in February 2014 to transform it — retroactively — into a multi-candidate committee participating and spending on candidates’ behalf in the 2013 primaries. AwfulPAC declared — nunc pro tunc — that it was an unauthorized committee for Dick Dobson in the primary and general elections, and in the primary for Joyce Wilson Nixon, Barbara Miller-Williams, Rick Zydel, and Wes Moore. They also claimed to be an unauthorized committee for Mark Manna for Amherst Town Board in 2013’s general election. Had AwfulPAC done that at its founding, it could have spent money on behalf of those candidates without coordination; however, as it was originally constituted, it was legally only allowed to raise and donate money to campaigns, and not to promote or oppose specific candidates. We’re meant to believe that it broke the law at the time, but a retroactive “oops” filing of a piece of paper retroactively rendered all its activities legal.
Part of my antipathy for electoral fusion stems from Pigeon’s deft manipulation and marshalling of minor party lines. He has conspired with Ralph Lorigo to steer the Conservative fusion Party line to his various candidates, and enjoys a close relationship with Tom Golisano, the founder of New York’s especially corrupt Independence fusion Party.
One way to think about all of this is political racketeering.
What is often lost in the AwfulPAC narrative is what it actually did. It mostly produced direct mail and other advertisements, some of which were practically defamatory in their rank falsehoods. Here is a sampler of mailers that AwfulPAC sent out to Democrats during the 2013 county legislature primaries.
They attacked other candidates similarly, including Lynn Dearmyer. The language and imagery used and sent to predominately white households is pretty blatantly racist. Betty Jean Grant is “radical” and “extremist.” “They” are “dead set” on “raising our taxes”
Grant and Hogues were understandably outraged. Mazurek was typically flippant. At bare minimum, Mazurek cut and signed the checks that paid for those inflammatory and racist mailers.
Under New York’s weak and hitherto habitually unenforced election law, there is no requirement that the groups sending these sorts of mailers out reveal their identity or funding. “Paid for by” isn’t a requirement, and it protects the racketeers instead of informing the voting public.
Generally, a PAC like the “WNY Progressive Caucus” would need to disclose to the Board of Elections where its money—almost $300,000 came in and went out practically overnight—was coming from. But when these mailers hit in late August 2013, it hadn’t yet filed anything. The reason why anyone found out about it was a FOIL request:
[Betty Jean] Grant on Friday charged that a rival wing of the local Democratic party is behind the anonymous ads. A request made under the Freedom of Information Act to the Postal Service has identified the permit holder on the mailings as the Western New York Progressive Caucus, headquartered on Doris Avenue in Lancaster.
That was Kristy Mazurek’s home, and she was listed as the group’s treasurer. Mazurek, at the time, had been a co-host of WGRZ’s “2Sides”, had helped direct the campaign of failed Comptroller candidate David Shenk, and then turned against Jeremy Zellner’s Democratic Committee and began running Moore’s and Zydel’s campaigns. In August 2013, I called them the “emoDems”,
It should be noted that WGRZ 2Sides co-host Kristy Mazurek is [Wes] Moore’s and [Rick] Zydel’s campaign manager. Query why [her former co-host Stefan] Mychajliw would have felt the need to abandon the show when he ran for public office, yet the Democrat on the show feels no similar ethical obligation to do so, going so far as to attempt to ridicule an opponent on Facebook who wasn’t interested in going on the show.
Mazurek had taken to Facebook to ridicule Moore’s opponent Wynnie Fisher for refusing to appear on 2Sides. Yet why on Earth would a candidate appear on a show to be interrogated by her opponent’s campaign manager? It’s an insane proposition. Mazurek left 2Sides just days later. (There’s David Pfaff again, BTW):
And so, Mazurek Palinistically took to Facebook to issue a non-denial denial about the WNY Progressive Caucus’ literature:
Translation: After Shenk lost, Zellner didn’t hire/get me hired for something-or-other, and so I’m going to align myself with the people who are working to undermine and unseat him. Note that Mazurek doesn’t deny that she or her PAC sent out the anti-Hogues and anti-Grant mailings. She simply says the complaints “don’t have merit”. So, I replied:
Reply, (right under one from Erick Mullen, who did all of Jack Davis’ ads that relentlessly went after endorsed Democrat Jon Powers in ’08):
I have no idea what that means. So,
There was no reply, natch; I don’t think Ms. Mazurek knew what “meritless” means. Ditto her apparently erstwhile ally Pigeon, who said that the charges against him related to Mazurek’s PAC were “frivolous“.
These types of anonymous mailers come out all the time, and when anonymous, you can bet that the people behind it want to keep you in the dark. You should be insulted by them – they figure you’re an idiot; an ignoramus. Yet there’s no law that says they have to disclose who they are. So, if you’re outraged when your candidate gets anonymously and unfairly slammed by anonyms, you’re going to have to lobby Albany to demand that the Election Law be amended to (a) require that all campaign advertisements and literature clearly disclose who paid for them; and (b) institute a hefty penalty for any violations – penalties that are confiscatory deterrents.
Nasty people with unclean hands legally get to make electoral politics dirtier than it has to be. If Mazurek and the people behind the group for which she is treasurer think that Tim Hogues is a closet Clarence Republican and that Barbara Miller-Williams is the reincarnation of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, then they should disclose who they are.
The disgruntled nominal Democrats in league with Steve Pigeon might consider this, for instance: instead of working with Republicans and the fusion parties actively to undermine endorsed Democrats, why not convince the various and sundry committee members why they should vote for Frank Max or Mark Manna over Jeremy Zellner for party chair next time around? If you’re in league with the Conservative Party, why even pretend to be a Democrat?
But in 2013, the Pigeoning was discovered far earlier than Pigeon and Mazurek had expected, on August 30th. Because they were outed via FOIL request, they were forced to file disclosures just 11 days before the primary, and the disclosure was, at best, packed with fiction. Think about it—they clearly didn’t want to disclose who they were on the reams of literature they produced, and so long as people didn’t know who was behind it, they could defame opponents with impunity. This time, however, they were outed and came under a media microscope. Hogues and Grant filed complaints with the Board of Election, bolstered by former Assistant District Attorney Mark Sacha, and that complaint was referred to the state, which then referred it to state investigators, and it came before the Moreland Commission and into the hands of Preet Bharara.
AwfulPAC supported a small handful of candidates; Nixon, Zydel and Moore lost their September primaries, but Dick Dobson won his for Sheriff and Barbara Miller-Williams defeated Tim Hogues. Only Miller-Williams won in November. Dick Dobson embarrassed Bert Dunn on primary night, so Dunn decided to waste his money and run on a tailor-made third party line, unsuccessfully. AwfulPAC, meanwhile, abandoned Dobson during the general election. Wynnie Fisher had defeated AwfulPAC candidate Wes Moore, so in October, Mazurek evidently used Michael Caputo’s PoliticsWNY.com to smear Fisher. Apparently, Fisher and her neighbors don’t get along, so a story was planted accusing Fisher of being crazy.
By the way—rumor has it that Mazurek and her crew are sniffing around at least two legislative races this year specifically to exact revenge against or otherwise thwart their opponents.
The intragovernmental tug-of-war over Presidential power is as old as the republic; there’s nothing new under the sun. In recent days, however, President Trump’s band of malignant sycophants and apologists have declared that the President wields some sort of supreme power over matters relating to immigration and whatever he deems, “national security” – power so all-consuming and superior that not even the courts have the right to review it.
To examine these claims, we turn to the courts themselves, and juxtapose the law concerning our uniquely American system of government with three co-equal branches, with the authoritarian claptrap from the haphazard oligarchs who discuss national security matters over dinner at Mar-a-Lago.
The Government contends that the district court lacked authority to enjoin enforcement of the Executive Order because the President has “unreviewable authority to suspend the admission of any class of aliens.” The Government does not merely argue that courts owe substantial deference to the immigration and national security policy determinations of the political branches—an uncontroversial principle that is well-grounded in our jurisprudence. See, e.g., Cardenas v. United States, 826 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that “the power to expel or exclude aliens [is] a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control” (quotingFiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977))); see alsoHolder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 33-34 (2010) (explaining that courts should defer to the political branches with respect to national security and foreign relations). Instead, the Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections. The Government indeed asserts that it violates separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional challenge to executive actions such as this one. – 3 Judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Washington v. Trump.
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn’t vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don’t vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, ‘ow did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,
[angels sing]
her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur was to carry Excalibur.
[singing stops]
That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen — strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
In Washington v. Trump, the 9th Circuit directly addressed the notion that the President’s actions relating to immigration and security are not subject to judicial review:
There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy. SeeBoumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 765 (2008) (rejecting the idea that, even by congressional statute, Congress and the Executive could eliminate federal court habeas jurisdiction over enemy combatants, because the “political branches” lack “the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will”). Within our system, it is the role of the judiciary to interpret the law, a duty that will sometimes require the “[r]esolution of litigation challenging the constitutional authority of one of the three branches.” Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566 U.S. 189, 196 (2012) (quoting INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 943 (1983)). We are called upon to perform that duty in this case. Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 695 (2001) (emphasizing that the power of the political branches over immigration “is subject to important constitutional limitations”); Chadha, 462 U.S. at 940-41 (rejecting the argument that Congress has “unreviewable authority over the regulation of aliens,” and affirming that courts can review “whether Congress has chosen a constitutionally permissible means of implementing that power”). Our court has likewise made clear that “[a]lthough alienage classifications are closely connected to matters of foreign policy and national security,” courts “can and do review foreign policy arguments that are offered to justify legislative or executive action when constitutional rights are at stake.” American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm. v. Reno, 70 F.3d 1045, 1056 (9th Cir. 1995).
This is not a new or radical law or phenomenon. We need only to re-read the words of the subject of a hit musical on Broadway, and it’s not King Mongkut or Arthur:
[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. – Alexander Hamilton Federalist No. 78.
If the words of the ten dollar founding father aren’t enough, here’s what the Supreme Court wrote in Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 landmark case dealing with the Constitution and judicial review of statutes and executive acts (and omissions).
It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create the cause.
The authority given to the Supreme Court by the act establishing the judicial system of the United States to issue writs of mandamus to public officers appears not to be warranted by the Constitution.
It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each.
If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
But contrast the words of our Founders and the federal court with those of Trump’s uncanny clone of Roy Cohn, Stephen Miller:
Well, I think that it’s been an important reminder to all Americans that we have a judiciary that has taken far too much power and become, in many cases, a supreme branch of government. One unelected judge in Seattle cannot remake laws for the entire country. I mean this is just crazy, John, the idea that you have a judge in Seattle say that a foreign national living in Libya has an effective right to enter the United States is — is — is beyond anything we’ve ever seen before.
The end result of this, though, is that our opponents, the media and the whole world will soon see as we begin to take further actions, that the powers of the president to protect our country are very substantial and will not be questioned. – Presidential advisor Stephen Miller.
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin’ I was an empereror just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they’d put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
HELP! HELP! I’m being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give away. Did you here that, did you here that, eh? That’s what I’m on about — did you see him repressing me, you saw it didn’t you?
I think the job that President Trump and his team have done is exceptional, especially given the fact he doesn’t even have his whole team put together. You know, you take one step at a time, in this case a judge ruled on the executive order on the travel ban, pointed out some ambiguities – that he thought were ambiguities – easy enough to fix, easy enough to come forth with a new executive order that addresses that. Call that a very small bump; we move on, we keep the border secure, we keep the country safe. What the press is saying … you know, ‘disarray’ or ‘confusion’ or whatever they may want to say I don’t think is that at all. We just – continuous improvement, we move forward, I think we may see a new executive order coming forward that addresses those concerns, and then we just – again – we move on. I don’t see the disarray, I mean, President Trump’s been in three weeks, he doesn’t have his full cabinet, and, it’s true, what he’s been able to accomplish is extraordinary.
When it comes to the President’s authority to secure our borders and decide who does or does not come into this country, [the President] does have absolute powers, and there’s no question about it. The ambiguity surrounded Green Card and maybe visa holders…when it comes to immigration, I think if you read it, he does have… that is a power that rests in his hands, and the judge nitpicked Green Card holders and visa holders – that can be easily addressed. But the President of the United States clearly has the authority to close the borders to people that he does not believe should be coming in, that would put our nation’s security at risk, and that is not to be questioned.
Miller’s and Collins’, “the powers of the president…will not be questioned” is the modern equivalent of the Führerprinzip, the concept of supreme executive power that governs within a fascist totalitarian system: that the leader’s word is above all written law and not subject to review or contradiction.
To call all of this ignorant and un-American is a dramatic understatement.
Earlier this week, someone – likely the Flaherty for DA campaign itself – “leaked” the results of a poll showing Flaherty absolutely crushing his Democratic primary opponents, John Flynn and Mark Sacha. But the law states that any campaign releasing the results of any poll must release the entire thing, in its entirety, and also file it with the Board of Elections. Flaherty’s campaign, which has already engaged in cheap and unbecoming shenanigans such as buying “FlynnforDA.com” and redirecting it to Flaherty’s own site, then did just that – released and filed the entire poll. But as people looked at the way in which this poll was conducted, this ploy has blown up in the campaign’s face.
The poll was conducted by David Binder research in late July, surveying 401 likely voters. It used language to confirm for people that Flaherty was the incumbent, “your District Attorney”, and fed people a barrage of negative messaging against Flynn – three separate attacks, while similar attacks on Sacha and Flaherty were very inside baseball. It falsely linked Flynn to Pigeon, called Flynn a “perennial candidate”, and falsely accused Flynn of supporting a wife-beater. That’s one way to suppress the vote and underhandedly attack your opponent with falsehoods.
The Flaherty campaign didn’t release this poll from a position of strength, but of fear. It is desperate to destroy Flynn and, by extension, Democratic Chairman Jeremy Zellner, and will go so far as to conduct – and publish – a blatant push-poll, but not before trying illegally to leak it. Flynn’s fundraising has been very successful, while Flaherty’s has lagged. Flaherty is trying to portray himself as inevitable in order to bolster his own fundraising efforts, despite his campaign being objectively outperformed in support and cash. County Executive Mark Poloncarz will enter the fray at a press conference scheduled for 2pm on Thursday.
60th Senate District Shitshow
Republican Kevin Stocker is going to court to prevent his removal from the Conservative fusion line based on the elimination of just enough petition signatures. He accuses Conservative fusion party boss Ralph Lorigo of retaining private investigators to pose as law enforcement and intimidate people into renouncing their signatures in some way. Given that Republican County Clerk Chris Jacobs, who has not yet told voters whether he supports his party’s Presidential nominee, will almost certainly get the (R) line, Stocker’s removal from the (C) line would leave him effectively out of the November general election.
The Republicans have also tried to take over the Green Party line again, and that, too, is going to court due to some apparent petition irregularities in an effort led by Todd Aldinger, who was most recently the chairman of the Erie County Charter Revision Commission.
Second Amendment Solutions
As for the Presidential campaign, you’d think it was October. Hillary Clinton is running a professional, competent campaign effort. She is discussing the issues, traveling the country, and inundating swing and battleground states with advertisements. The same can’t be said for the Republicans, who find themselves backing an authoritarian charlatan with a mouth as big as his experience and knowledge are microscopic. We have learned in the last few weeks a few things – 1. Clinton Derangement Syndrome is an acute affliction that becomes more desperate with each passing day, appears to be a virus that can lay dormant for as many as 16 years before recurring; and 2. the entire campaign has become an exercise in “what insane thing will Donald Trump say next?”
Just when you think Trump has said the most outrageous lie, he tells another. It’s comical that, in order to do battle with a Democratic candidate whom they wish to portray as “crooked”, the Republicans have selected a serial, inveterate liar.
Earlier this week, Trump went too far, exhorting his cult to commit acts of violence. It came after Trump claimed – falsely – that Hillary Clinton would repeal the 2nd Amendment. Presidents don’t have the power to repeal Constitutional amendments, so Trump’s lie isn’t even especially clever. Here is what Trump said, within its full “context”:
So here, I just wrote this down today. Hillary wants to raise taxes — it’s a comparison. I want to lower them. Hillary wants to expand regulations, which she does bigly. Can you believe that? I will reduce them very, very substantially, could be as much as 70 to 75 percent. Hillary wants to shut down energy production. I want to expand it. Lower electric bills, folks! Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick –if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if — if — Hillary gets to put her judges in.”
“Bigly”, for fuck’s sake. They nominated a guy who talks like a 1st grader. But forget the “substance” of Trump’s cretinous stream of consciousness, let’s look at the remarks. The Trump people have claimed that what Trump really meant was that 2nd Amendment “people” should wield their political power, not their guns. OK. But if Hillary Clinton is President, she’s already won and there’s no voting power to be wielded anymore. Sure, the Senate could block a Clinton nomination – assuming it’s got enough Republicans left in it. But “2nd Amendment people” don’t do that – Senators do. What happened here is that Trump suggested that gun owners, many of whom already believe that their right to bear arms is wholly unrestricted, and that the 2nd Amendment was somehow designed by the nation’s Founders specifically to enable guys like accused election fraudster Rus Thompson to do battle with law enforcement and the government; “tyranny”, as defined by idiots.
Trump knew exactly what he meant, when he suggested that the 2nd Amendment people’s intervention would lead to a “horrible” day, before quickly pivoting to make it not about assassination but judicial selection. This wasn’t a dog-whistle, but Lucille Bluth’s rape horn. This is how assassinations happen. It doesn’t matter what Trump says he meant, or what his supporters try to explain away – what matters is how one well-armed, poorly hinged lunatic interprets Trump’s constant delegitimization of Hillary Clinton, and his calls to “lock her up”, and “crooked Hillary”, whom he would “indict” on his first day in office. It’s come to this: Trump conspiring with Julian Assange to accuse Hillary Clinton of somehow ordering the murder of a young DNC staffer in Washington DC, because reasons.
Maybe Carl Paladino, the worst person in the world, can’t comprehend what Trump meant, but the Secret Service sure did.
Maybe Nick Langworthy has nothing to say about it, but this is a country where a person can bring a Hillary Clinton effigy in a coffin to the Hamburgfest car show and win a fucking award. HAHA IT’S FUNNY BECAUSE HELLARY HITLERY KLINTOON IS A [insert misogynist epithet here]. They’re losing to her, so they want to kill her. It’s really quite simple.
Trump’s is the InfoWars campaign. Hillary Clinton is an easy mark for right-wing lunatics to project whatever they want. But as Trump pivots from his “2nd Amendment people” incitement to accusing President Obama of “founding” ISIS, to – what’s he going to say today? That he’ll nuke Chappaqua? All Secretary Clinton has to do is get out of the way of her opponent’s self-destruction. Even the bullshit about the Orlando shooter’s father attending her campaign rally blew up in Trump’s face, when former Congressman Mark Foley was seen prominently behind Trump at a rally last night. Foley, a pervert, was caught propositioning underage Congressional pages.
The only thing at this point more glaring than the Trump campaign’s relentless death spiral is the silence of key surrogate Congressman Chris Collins, who will sell out every principle he ever pretended to have in order to get a cabinet post in America’s first neo-fascist regime. Donald Trump’s campaign began in earnest in 2012, with Trump’s relentlessly racist birther campaign against Hawaiian-born President Obama. He is an appalling disgrace in every conceivable way.
