US Politics

Of all the names bouncing around as prospects yet to be tapped for the incoming Biden-Harris administration, there’s one triggering intense emotion, especially in his home town.News that Rahm Emanuel is being considered for transportation secretary or another position in Joe Biden’s cabinet or senior team has sparked outrage among Chicagoans who believe his controversial tenure as mayor of that city should disqualify him from a return to the highest echelons of Washington.Emanuel is a Chicago native with a track record as an Illinois congressman before serving as Barack Obama’s chief of staff then two terms as Chicago mayor.But he’s a divisive figure who long ago upset liberals, most prominently in Washington, by discouraging Obama from pursuing what became his signature legislative achievement – healthcare reform via the Affordable Care Act – and then in myriad ways as mayor of Chicago from 2011 to 2019.He’s been endorsed by key moderate figures such as the Illinois senator and Democratic whip Dick Durbin, ex-transportation secretary and former Illinois Republican congressman Ray LaHood, current congressman Mike Quigley and Chicago South Side alderman Michelle Harris, who described him as “the perfect candidate” for the transportation job.But prominent progressives in Chicago and elsewhere are livid that Biden would even give his name an airing, accusing Emanuel of exacerbating the city’s entrenched, acute inequalities and, most dramatically, botching the handling of Black teenager Laquan McDonald’s killing by a white police officer in 2014.Rahm Emanuel “covered up the murder of a young Black man in Chicago in order to advance his political career”, city alderman Carlos Ramirez-Rosa said of his potential appointment.Dashcam footage of 17-year-old McDonald being gunned down by officer Jason Van Dyke, who was convicted in 2018 of the murder, was suppressed for more than a year before a judge ordered it released. Emanuel’s role in that delay ignited weeks of local and national protests and calls for his resignation. It left an indelible stain and he didn’t run for a third term.Eva Maria Lewis, a Chicago artist and organizer as well as the founder of the Free Root Operation, a non-profit fighting poverty-induced gun violence, said that a post for Emanuel in the Biden-Harris administration would mean “people don’t care” what Black Americans have to say.“You can’t argue against the information, the evidence is all there – 16 shots and a cover-up, everyone knows what that means. He was essentially ousted. People were not going to go for him being in office after the Laquan McDonald cover-up,” she said.In the aftermath of the scandal, Emanuel opposed a federal investigation into the Chicago police department and failed to cultivate a community oversight board for the police, as had been promised.Elsewhere, the New York congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and congressman-elect Jamaal Bowman spoke out along similar lines, as did Missouri congresswoman-elect Cori Bush.What is so hard to understand about this?Rahm Emanuel helped cover up the murder of Laquan McDonald. Covering up a murder is disqualifying for public leadership.This is not about the “visibility” of a post. It is shameful and concerning that he is even being considered. https://t.co/P28C0E4fYP— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) November 23, 2020
Liberal critics in Chicago are opposed on additional grounds.Ramirez-Rosa pointed to the infamous closing of 50 Chicago public schools under Emanuel. He added: “He passed policies that balanced the city of Chicago on the backs of working people. I think he’s shown that he is not fit to serve in Biden’s cabinet and really do what needs to be done to undo the harm that was caused by President Trump.”And he accused Emanuel of focusing on wielding power “on behalf of the interests to billionaires”, including ultra-wealthy Republicans.Emanuel divested from Chicago’s public education after mandating millions in budget cuts as well as 1,400 layoffs, leading to a dire reduction of school nurses, librarians, social workers, and others. In 2012, Chicago teachers went on strike for the first time in almost 25 years.The school closures, the most at any one time, were concentrated in majority-black, poorer neighborhoods and disrupted many families’ lives.“Children had to cross gang territory to get an education. Schools were overcrowded. People were forced to attend dilapidated schools. The budget was not equitably distributed – closing the schools was avoidable,” said Lewis.Notoriously, Emanuel closed half of Chicago’s public mental health clinics with most of them concentrated on the South Side. The closings resulted in wide disparities in access to mental health treatment, with 0.17 licensed mental health clinicians for every 1,000 South Side residents versus 4.45 for every 1,000 residents on the city’s wealthier North Side. The closing led to a convoluted transition process, with hundreds of unaccounted for patients and overburdened neighboring community mental health providers.Then there is his style, typical descriptions ranging from tough and effective to abrasive and bullying and, obviously, his reputation on transportation, which is glaringly inconsistent.“If you didn’t agree on an issue, he was extremely confrontational. I often had one-way confrontations with him where I would ask him questions that should’ve been asked on different issues – such as the ‘Elon Musk tunnel’,” said Scott Waguespack, alderman of Chicago’s 32nd ward.He added: “Even asking questions about that was met with pushback from him. He didn’t like anyone questioning his projects like that. That’s what people have to expect.”Emanuel touted a project with Tesla’s Musk to built a high-speed underground transportation system to link downtown to Chicago O’Hare airport, which ultimately failed.“It was all imagery he put up, that in the long run really had no substance to it,” said Waguespack.The mayor also created the Chicago Infrastructure Trust, claiming to have secured $1bn worth of private investment and pledging to create 30,000 jobs over three years. The promises didn’t come to fruition and the current mayor, Lori Lightfoot, has since dissolved the trust.Overall, Emanuel has a mixed legacy on an ambitious transportation vision for Chicago, credited with expanding walking paths and biking lanes in some neighborhoods, making essential upgrades to Chicago’s public transportation and improvements at O’Hare – but a drive towards sustainability and greater equality in services was missing.The Guardian contacted Emanuel for comment but did not receive a response.And there is another constituency whose opposition to a great “Return of Rahm” should give Biden pause – trade unions, including in transportation, whose support was a crucial source of votes in Biden’s win last month.The Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) called the prospect a betrayal and Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, called Emanuel a union buster.Again, no. DOT is effectively the labor department for aviation – 80% union. It plays a major role in transportation trade too. We do not need a union buster setting the rules for workers in aviation. That just doesn’t reflect @JoeBiden’s deep commitment to workers & our unions. https://t.co/IjEvqwxbKK— Sara Nelson (@FlyingWithSara) November 30, 2020
Emanuel had a hostile relationship with representatives of teachers and other city employees.“We didn’t work our asses off to have Rahm Emanuel as the secretary of transportation … he’s anti-trade union, he’s anti-worker,” John Samuelsen, international president of TWU, told the Intercept.Chicago alderman Ramirez-Rosa concluded that any elevation of Emanuel would be a sign that a Biden administration meant “more of the same” political culture in Washington that has eroded public faith.He said it would signal that “if you have lobbyists, big donors, or billionaires backing you up, they will be able to put you in that cabinet so you can carry water for them”. More

Donald Trump’s foreign policy has, in the judgment of many analysts, damaged U.S. moral standing around the world. During four years of “America First,” the Trump administration has gotten cozy with governments that disdain human rights norms and laws, restricted immigration on the basis of religion and withdrawn from treaties aimed to bolster international well-being.
Joe Biden has promised to set a different course, to “reclaim” America’s “position as the moral and economic leader of the world.” Doing so might be vital as the U.S. competes for international influence against rival powers China and Russia.
What strikes me, a scholar of history and foreign policy, is that this Biden orientation aligns with one of the vivid strands in U.S. tradition: to apply American versions of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the conception and implementation of foreign policy. This American “idealism” has not only fortified U.S. security, but has also helped smooth the jagged edges of international politics.
Society of nations
Washington has periodically tried over the decades to improve the quality and tone of the “international society” – defined by scholar Hedley Bull as the common set of rules, both informal and codified, by which states are bound.
Less coherent or robust than domestic structures of laws and norms, “international society” has been, and remains, a fragile and somewhat amorphous concept. Yet, as theorized by scholars like Bull, “international society” has always had a tangible aspect. It draws states into occasional cooperation, mediated by treaties, laws, diplomatic traditions, customs and transnational institutions.
In contrast, the current administration has used foreign policy as a tool for a narrowly defined transactional national interest, in accordance with Trump’s “America First” agenda.
But a more elevated approach appears throughout U.S. history.
Francis Lieber numbered among the earlier proponents of practices to mitigate wartime suffering. A German-American political-legal thinker, Lieber advanced ideas in the 1860s regarding the humane treatment of enemy prisoners and wounded soldiers.
Blowing bubbles – a cartoonist’s verdict on Woodrow Wilson’s attempt at international cooperation. Fine Art Images/Heritage Images via Getty Images
In the 20th century, attempts to bring ethics into foreign policy were made by successive U.S. presidents. President Woodrow Wilson in 1919 promoted the League of Nations, which he conceived as an institutional guarantor of world order and peace. And American diplomats played a prominent role in the 1928 outlawing of war through the quixotic Kellogg-Briand Pact.
President Franklin Roosevelt in January 1941 asserted that people everywhere were entitled to four fundamental freedoms – freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. He later proved an insistent and effective advocate for creating the United Nations.
This desire to improve the tone and quality of “international society” persisted into the post-World War II era. American jurists were involved in the Nuremberg inquests into Nazi atrocities. The trials were in large part convened to salvage and reassert the meaningfulness of civilized standards of conduct in world affairs.
Former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt played a leading role in the formulation of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-born Jewish lawyer who found permanent refuge in the United States, became the main architect of the 1948 Genocide Convention.
Kissinger to Carter
In recent decades, the most lucid expression by a president on ethics and foreign policy came from Jimmy Carter. To help expunge the stain of the Vietnam War and counter the influence of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s stark realpolitik, Carter promoted human rights as a U.S. foreign policy goal.
Two very different approaches to foreign policy: Kissinger and Carter. Benjamin E. ‘Gene’ Forte/CNP/Getty Images
According to Carter, and echoing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights included both political and material rights. On the political side, this meant the right to be free from abuse and torture, arbitrary arrest, random imprisonment or denial of a fair public trial. In the Carter definition, human rights also encompassed religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of press and access to education. On the material side, human rights entailed fulfillment of basics, notably food, shelter, decent employment and health care.
To Carter, U.S. policy needed to be “rooted in our moral values” and “designed to serve mankind.” In practical terms this meant an end to ignoring human rights transgressions by allies, as in the case of South Africa’s apartheid regime, and terminating U.S. military support of Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza.
Albeit ridiculed by “realist” skeptics at the time and later for amounting to empty piety, or dismissed by others as merely cloaking the structures of power, these proclamations and actions – from Lieber to Carter – nonetheless helped create the modern international order. Collectively, they constitute the intermittent triumph of hopefulness against despair and infamy.
Retreat from the world
The disorientation and anxiety caused by the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks led to a U.S. retreat from building a world order that, however partial and imperfectly realized, had stimulated the moral imagination of many Americans.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – and by extension, drone attacks in Pakistan – inflicted devastation and disruption incompatible with America’s alleged mission, namely promoting the welfare of people in those afflicted countries and safeguarding U.S. safety.
The horrors of Abu Ghraib and the rendition of prisoners to secret sites where they endured water boarding and other torture caused the United States to forfeit much of the good will it had accumulated over decades.
This diminished U.S. stature was compounded under Trump by the spectacle of children being separated from parents along the Southern border and by moves to disengage from the international community – such as withdrawing from the World Health Organization and the Paris climate agreement.
[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]
Biden’s administration faces the daunting task of rehabilitating U.S. standing. In the ongoing competitions for influence and power between America, China and Russia, the retrieval of U.S. ethical traditions may prove vital.
Incoming Secretary of State Antony Blinken, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield appear determined to rebuild America’s reputation. Their success or failure could affect not only U.S. well-being but also the character of “international society” for coming decades. Moderation, restraint and ethical clarity have been in short supply since 2001, but they might be replenished if the Biden team dips back into America’s tradition of inserting an ethical component in foreign policy. More

Jonathan Freedland is joined by Lerone Martin of Washington University, to discuss how America’s strictest Christians came to back Donald Trump. Now that Trump is on his way out, where does that leave his Christian backers?

How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

In 2016, white evangelical Christians were all in for Donald Trump. No voting bloc was more committed to him. In that year he got 81% of the white evangelical vote. And they stood by him again in 2020. Last month his support among that group was 75%. Down a bit, but still huge. So, how come? Jonathan Freedland puts this to Lerone Martin, associate professor of religion and politics at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri. Let us know what you think of the podcast: send your feedback to [email protected] Help support the Guardian by going to gu.com/supportpodcasts More

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have been named Time magazine’s person – or persons – of the year for 2020.The magazine said: “Together, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris offered restoration and renewal in a single ticket. And America bought what they were selling: after the highest turnout in a century, they racked up 81 million votes and counting, the most in presidential history, topping Trump by some 7 million votes and flipping five battleground states.”The accolade for Biden sees him follow in the footsteps of Barack Obama (2012) and Donald Trump (2016). Last year’s winner was climate activist Greta Thunberg.Biden, 78, who served two terms as vice president to Barack Obama, will become the oldest person to assume the office of US president when he is sworn in on 20 January. Harris will become the first woman, the first Black and the first person of Asian descent to be inaugurated vice president.The Person of the Year is usually an individual, but multiple people have been named in the past. In recent years the magazine has also taken to recognizing groups or movements. In 2017, the magazine selected “The Silence Breakers” of the MeToo movement, and in 2018, chose to designate journalists who were imprisoned or killed for their work.Prior to naming this year’s winner on Thursday, the magazine announced four finalists, included Biden and Trump – as well as two broader categories: the movement for racial justice, and frontline healthcare workers and Dr Anthony Fauci, the country’s leading infectious diseases scientist. Trump has been on the shortlist every year since he won the 2016 election.Time has named a person of the year since 1927. The selection represents “an individual but sometimes multiple people who greatly impacted the country and world during the calendar year”, the magazine says. The designation is not necessarily an honor. Rather, it recognizes figures who have “influenced the news, for better or for worse,” according to the magazine.Along with its Person of the Year honor, Time magazine named the Korean pop group BTS as its Entertainer of the Year, and basketball star LeBron James was crowned Athlete of the Year. More

A look back at how the Guardian covered a year that began with the outbreak of a pandemic, witnessed global anti-racism protests after the killing of George Floyd, and ended with the voting out of President Donald Trump

How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

As we entered a new decade back in January, newspapers were full of stories about Australian bushfires, tensions between the US and Iran, and the British Conservatives were revelling in their 80-seat majority. But the World Health Organization was already dealing with news of a ‘novel coronavirus’ in Wuhan, China, a disease that was going to dramatically change the way we lived our lives. Covid-19 swept through Asia and into Europe and beyond, killing almost 2 million people and bringing the world’s economies to their knees. The Guardian’s editor-in-chief, Katharine Viner, joins Anushka Asthana to look back on a year in which reporters covered some huge breaking stories, including the killing of George Floyd and the global anti-racism movement Black Lives Matter. There was the US election in which the American people voted to remove Donald Trump. And there was the biggest story of all: the continuing climate crisis which, despite a pandemic-induced reduction in travel, only resulted in a 7% drop in global emissions. And all the while Britain hurtled inexorably towards an end-of-year Brexit. More

Key events

Show

4.43pm EST16:43
Texas attorney general files 11th-hour election lawsuit against four states to the supreme court

3.15pm EST15:15
Biden says ‘Defund the Police’ gave momentum to GOP to ‘beat the living hell out of us’ in election

1.09pm EST13:09
Afternoon summary

10.34am EST10:34
Biden team announces Domestic Policy Council director and secretary of veteran affairs

8.36am EST08:36
853,000 Americans applied for jobless insurance last week

7.52am EST07:52
FDA chief on vaccine meeting: ‘An important day for all of America’

7.41am EST07:41
DoJ files lawsuit against Alabama over conditions in the state prisons

Live feed

Show

4.43pm EST16:43

Texas attorney general files 11th-hour election lawsuit against four states to the supreme court

The supreme court today is deliberating a lawsuit filed by Texas attorney general Ken Paxton against four battleground states – Wisconsin, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Michigan – in an attempt to have million of votes tossed out on claims that the states did not seriously investigate voter fraud, though there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the election.
Donald Trump and 17 Republican-led states backed the lawsuit, which is a clear 11th-hour attempt at trying to overturn the election in Trump’s favor, though all 50 states have certified their election results. The Trump campaign and local Republican parties have been instigating lawsuits in attempts to change the election since the results were announced over a month ago, but the vast majority have died in court.
Though Trump has suggested he hopes the three conservative judges he appointed to the court will side with him in an election dispute, the supreme court has so far shown no interest in intervening with the results of the election. The court quickly denied its first chance to give a win to the Trump campaign after it rejected a request from Pennsylvania Republicans to block the state’s certification of votes.
The four states targeted by the lawsuit have already responded to the filing. The court may wait for Texas’ response to those or it could make a ruling before the state gets a chance to file such a response.
While the GOP has already run out of time to fight the election, next week will be the last official step to Joe Biden becoming the next president as the electoral college is scheduled to meet 14 December to finalize the results of the election.

Updated
at 4.49pm EST

4.21pm EST16:21

Jessica Glenza

Let’s go through some of the details of the vaccine being considered by the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) vaccine advisory committee.
The FDA advisory panel is considering whether to recommend the vaccine for emergency use authorization, often called EUA. That would allow the vaccine to be distributed to the public, but is a lower bar than full approval and only valid during the public health emergency – in this case the Covid-19 pandemic.
Supplies will be very limited at first. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has already recommended the first people to receive the vaccine – health workers and long-term care residents.
The vaccine appears highly effective. According to data published in the New England Journal of Medicine on Thursday, the vaccine appears to be 95% effective in preventing Covid-19 a trial of more than 43,000 people. The study looked at a two-shot regimen.
The vaccine is a messenger RNA vaccine, which provokes immunity by introducing the immune system to the spike protein on the coronavirus.
The trial was a randomized, placebo-controlled observer-blinded trial that split participants evenly between people who received two shots of a placebo, and two shots of the vaccine – currently called “BNT162b2”.
The study looked specifically at people 16 years and older. In future studies, Pfizer intends to look at vaccine safety and efficacy in children as young as 12.
Side effects included headache, fatigue and fever, which resolved within a couple days. The government intends to use several surveillance programs to collect information on side effects, called “adverse events”, for years after the vaccine is distributed. It will also begin a surveillance study on healthcare workers specifically.
The FDA recommended continued surveillance for Bell’s palsy, or facial paralysis. There is no current evidence that the vaccine causes facial paralysis, but four cases among vaccine recipients in the trial.
The FDA found only one possible serious adverse effect related to the vaccine, which was a shoulder injury. Other serious adverse events, such as a case of appendicitis, were found not to be unrelated to the vaccine.
Trial participants were followed for a median of two months after they received either the vaccine or a placebo. Most adverse vaccine reactions take place within six weeks.
Scientists are still studying how long immunity lasts, a concept known as “durability”, and the rate of asymptomatic disease in people who receive the vaccine.
There is very little data on safety and efficacy in pregnant and lactating women, but there is also no evidence it is harmful to pregnant women or the fetus. For that reason, FDA officials suggest pregnant women should discuss the vaccine with their healthcare provider, when it becomes available to them.
The panel is expected to recommend an emergency use authorization, and the FDA is expected to grant emergency use rights. The New England Journal of Medicine, which published Pfizer’s results today, called the new vaccine a “triumph” of science.

Updated
at 4.36pm EST

4.00pm EST16:00

Joan E Greve

More than 100 female leaders in the Native American community and entertainment industry have signed on to a letter calling on Joe Biden to nominate congresswoman Deb Haaland as interior secretary.
“As women who have worked to protect our democracy and advance the promise of this country, we are hopeful and relieved that you will be leading us into a bright future,” the letter says.
“It is in this spirit that we, Native American women and Indigenous peoples’ allies, write to urge you to appoint Congresswoman Deb Haaland as Secretary of the Department of the Interior.”
Among those who have signed on to the letter are singer Cher, actress Kerry Washington and feminist activist Gloria Steinam.
If nominated and confirmed, Haaland, a progressive congresswoman from New Mexico, would be the first Native American to lead the interior department.
“We believe it is critical at this time for the first Native American to serve in the President’s Cabinet, so we can begin to shift the focus back to caring for future generations and returning to a value system that honors Mother Earth,” the letter says. “We believe that person is Congresswoman Deb Haaland.”
Progressive groups have pushed for Haaland’s nomination, but some Democratic leaders have expressed hesitation about pulling another House member into Biden’s cabinet, given the party’s very narrow margin in the chamber after last month’s elections.

3.37pm EST15:37

The New Hampshire House Speaker, Dick Hinch, who was sworn into his role just last week, died yesterday from Covid-19.
News of Hinch’s death yesterday was unexpected. A statement announcing his death did not include a cause of death, but said that Hinch, who was 71, was “a loving husband, father, family man, and veteran who devoted his life to public service”. Hinch’s office said his death was an “unexpected tragedy”.
A medical examiner today announced that Hinch had died from Covid-19.
In response, the state’s acting Speaker Sherman Packard and Senate President Chuck Morse said they are “committed to protecting the health and safety of our fellow legislators and staff members who work at the statehouse in Concord”. Their statement said they will be working with the state’s health department to see if there are any additional Covid-19 protocols that can be put in place “to ensure the continued protection of our legislators and staff”. More

[embedded content]
Susan Rice has been tapped by president-elect Joe Biden to run his domestic policy council, an under-the-radar but highly influential group with broad sway over the administration’s approach to issues including immigration, healthcare and racial inequality.
The move marks a surprising shift for Rice, a longtime Democratic foreign policy expert who served as President Barack Obama’s national security adviser and UN ambassador.
Rice’s name had been floated for multiple high-ranking positions in the incoming Biden administration. She was one of the finalists to be Biden’s vice-presidential running mate. She was also considered for secretary of state.
But the Biden transition team has been wary about tapping anyone who could face a difficult confirmation process. Republicans have been eager to fight aggressively to prevent Rice from making it through the confirmation process and were expected to recall her involvement in the 2012 Benghazi attack in Libya as part of their strategy.
The domestic policy council position does not require Senate confirmation.
Biden also nominated Denis McDonough, former chief of staff to President Obama, to run the Department of Veterans Affairs, a sprawling agency that has presented organizational challenges for both parties over the years. But he never served in the armed forces, a fact noted by a leading veterans organization.
In selecting Rice and McDonough, Biden is continuing to fill his administration with prominent members of the Obama administration. He will make the formal announcements on Friday, along with his nominations of the Ohio representative Marcia Fudge to run the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Katherine Tai as US trade representative and Tom Vilsack as agriculture secretary. Vilsack filled that same role during Obama’s two terms.
“The roles they will take on are where the rubber meets the road – where competent and crisis-tested governance can make a meaningful difference in people’s lives, enhancing the dignity, equity, security, and prosperity of the day-to-day lives of Americans,” Biden said in a statement.
In choosing Rice to oversee the White House council, advisers said Biden was signaling the importance of domestic policy in his early agenda. Though the council was created with the intention of being on par with the White House national security council, it traditionally has had a lower public profile, including for its directors.
Rice is expected to be more of a force, inside and outside the White House, and her appointment creates a new power center in the West Wing. She has discussed replicating some elements of the national security council in her new role, including a principals committee of cabinet secretaries and others that could bring more structure to domestic policymaking, but also pull more power into the West Wing.
She is expected to play an active role in the Biden administration’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. Healthcare, immigration and tackling racial inequality are also expected to be among the top issues for the domestic policy shop next year.
The 56-year-old Rice will be among the most prominent Black women in Biden’s administration.
Although Biden has insisted his administration will not simply be a retread of Obama’s presidency, he is bringing back numerous familiar faces. His team has defended the moves as a nod toward experience and the need to hit the ground running in tackling the pressing issues facing the nation across multiple fronts.
Shirley Anne Warshaw, a professor at Gettysburg College who has studied the presidency and cabinets, said following Obama as he builds out his team gives Biden an advantage.
“This is a much better bench than Obama had because these people have the experience of serving in the Obama administration,” Warshaw said. “In that way, Joe Biden is the luckiest man in the world.” More

Hello Fight to Vote readers,It feels like this election has lasted about 20 years, but we’re finally in the last few days. Tuesday was the “Safe Harbor” deadline, when most election disputes must be resolved. And on Monday, the electoral college will finally cast its votes, all but securing the president-elect’s position.In these final days, it’s clear that Republican officials who support Trump’s “the election was rigged against me” claims are taking their final gasps of air.Let’s take a trip back to TexasAfter a tumultuous year, the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, has decided to sue the battleground states of Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. His claim? That all of their pandemic election changes violate federal law. Paxton claims that the attempts to increase access to the polls left open a window for “voter fraud” and weakened “ballot integrity”.Reminder: even Trump’s own attorney general found no evidence of widespread tampering or voter fraud in the election.So what happens now?Probably nothing. As with most of the Trump campaign’s lawsuits, legal experts are saying Paxton’s will have no real impact. However, these challenges serve to create an impression that our elections aren’t secure or fair – and that only further degrades trust in US democracy among the American people.How about the other last-ditch attempts?The supreme court decisively rejected a lawsuit by Pennsylvania’s Republican congressman Mike Kelly arguing that no-excuse absentee voting was illegal. The case was the first 2020 election legislation to reach the highest court in the US.
Representative Alex Mooney, from West Virginia, introduced a resolution on Tuesday to condemn any lawmakers who call on Trump to concede “prematurely”, though the president lost the election by a significant margin. Many Republicans have distanced themselves from this kind of rhetoric, however, and the resolution isn’t likely to move forward in any meaningful way.
Representative Kelly Loeffler, the Republican senator running for re-election in Georgia’s heated January runoff, refused to accept Trump’s defeat in a debate on Sunday. The current polls have Loeffler losing by a small margin.
Here’s what to watch in the coming weeks:14 December: Electors will meet in their respective states and cast votes for US president. Each state gets two votes for its senators and one vote for each member of the House of Representatives. Some Republicans have said they will challenge the count.23 December: Electoral votes must arrive in Washington by this date.6 January: Electoral votes are counted. If there are objections, the House and Senate consider how they should move forward and count the votes. It’s unlikely that the objections will have an impact on the election since both the Democratic-controlled House and Republican-controlled Senate would have to sign off.20 January: Inauguration day. The new president takes the oath of office at noon.Meanwhile, if you missed it, Saturday Night Live had a brilliant sketch on Trump’s failed lawsuits last weekend. More