US elections 2024

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Robert F Kennedy Jr lists foreclosed New York home as voting address

      by

      Robert F Kennedy Jr has listed a home in foreclosure for non-payment as his voting address, though he does not own the property and is not listed in public searches as one of its residents, according to online records.In a statement late Sunday to the New York Post, which first reported on the home in question and how neighbors have never seen him there, the independent candidate’s presidential campaign insisted that the property was his “official address”.“He receives mail there,” said the statement provided to the publication, which noted how the candidate’s father, Robert F Kennedy Sr, served as a US senator for New York before his assassination in 1968. “His driver’s license is registered there. His automobile is registered there. His voting registration is from there. His hunting, fishing, falconry and wildlife rehabilitation licenses are from there. He pays rent to the owner.”Kennedy went on the defensive about his ties to the luxury home on Croton Lake Road in the Westchester county community of Katonah as both Joe Biden and Donald Trump have perceived him as a threat to their prospects in November’s race for the White House.Both the the Democratic incumbent and the former Republican president fear that the conspiracy theorist and anti-vaccine activist – who is averaging about 10% in national polls – could siphon off enough votes to swing the race.Voting records first reviewed by the New York Post show Kennedy used the Croton Lake Road address in eight primary or general elections between 2008 and 2020.Property records show the home’s owner is Barbara Moss, an interior and landscape designer who is married to Timothy Haydock – a doctor, Kennedy’s longtime friend and the father of the candidate’s goddaughter.Moss received notice in late April that the US Bank Trust company in March had filed to foreclose on the Croton Lake Road home, saying she owed more than $46,000 plus interest on the property. A conference to settle the matter was scheduled for 7 June.The Post said it interviewed neighbors of Moss – and even local authorities – who described themselves as “shocked” that the home was linked to Kennedy, also known for being the nephew of both John F Kennedy and Ted Kennedy.One police officer told the Post, “No … he doesn’t live here.” And publicly accessible property search records show Kennedy’s most recent addresses are in Los Angeles as well as Foxborough, Massachusetts.But in an interview that he granted to the Post, Kennedy’s brother, Doug, said Robert lived or at least stayed with Moss and Haydock “for a number of years”.The statement added that Kennedy moved to Croton Lake Road long term – at Haydock’s invitation – after his declaration as a presidential candidate in the spring of 2023 prompted the landlord at his old place in nearby Bedford, New York, to ask him to relocate over fears about “becoming embroiled in political controversy”.Kennedy had not been seen on Croton Lake Road since running for the presidency required him to constantly travel to other states, according to his campaign’s statement to the Post.Among other things, the campaign also claimed that Kennedy has always planned to resettle in New York permanently after his wife, the actor and comedian Cheryl Hines, retires from her film and television career.Kennedy, 70, grappled with Sunday’s revelations less than two weeks after the New York Times published a story about a 2012 deposition in which he said he had endured a previous neurological problem because a worm got in his brain, “ate a portion of it and then died”.He later boasted that he could “eat five more brain worms and still beat” both Biden, 81, and Trump, 77, in a staged debate. More

    • 200 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘There’s no fraud here’: how a Republican official is addressing election denialism in his rural county

      by

      Abe Dane would be the first to admit he had concerns about election fraud during the 2020 election. He believed the elections in his own county, where he had worked the polls, were clean – but he wasn’t sure about other counties in the state, where unfounded claims of fraud swirled in 2020.That was before he took a position in local election administration. Now, with first-hand experience, Dane, the director of elections in Hillsdale county, Michigan, is confident in the process.It’s convincing others that’s the challenge now.Since 2020, deep-red Hillsdale county has been a flashpoint for election anxieties. Stephanie Scott, the elections clerk from Adams Township – one of the offices in Dane’s jurisdiction – earned the attention of figures in Donald Trump’s inner circle as she spread false claims of fraud and refused orders by the secretary of state’s office to turn over voting equipment for regular maintenance. Scott was ousted in a recall campaign by activists who were fed up with her insistence on spreading the false claim that the last election was stolen from Trump.On 8 May, the Michigan attorney general, Dana Nessel, announced felony charges against Scott and her attorney, Stefanie Lambert, for allegedly turning over private voter data from the 2020 election to an unauthorized third party.Meanwhile, Scott has filed paperwork to challenge Dane in his fall election for Hillsdale county clerk.The Guardian spoke with Abe Dane about running an elections office during troubled political times – and his own shifting view of election security.View image in fullscreenIn a more conservative area, like Hillsdale, where people know that their neighbors are mostly going to be voting along a certain party line, do you still see the same kind of politicization around election administration as elsewhere? What does that look like for you, in a conservative town, as an elected Republican?Being a Republican and administering elections, I’m pushing back on that [politicization]. I try my best when I’m at township meetings, or city meetings, to choose my words carefully.I guess when I first started, I was a little bit more cautious. Here’s an example: I would say, “In Hillsdale county, there is no election fraud going on. We are doing things right in this county.” I’d always say “in this county”. I’ve gotten to the point now where I personally believe that our elections nationwide are completely fine. And so I’m starting to stop that, and to stop trying not to offend my fellow Republicans in my county. I’ll just say flat out, like, “I don’t think there was election fraud anywhere. I think people have a different worldview than you and you can’t accept that.”You mentioned earlier you had doubts about the election and concerns about election fraud, but it sounds like your view now has shifted. Can you tell me about that evolution?Well, to start with, in 2020 and before, I wasn’t in county government at all.I began to be an election inspector in the 2020 elections, and I knew things were on the up-and-up here. I didn’t have any questions about our own county. But I had questions about, you know, Detroit or Wayne county – things like that. As I got into election administration, I started seeing the processes, the checks and balances, the security that’s involved, and got familiar with a qualified voter file – the state’s voter registration system – and how they manage that list.There’s no good training to be an election administrator that’s from an accredited school. So, our education comes from our peers, and our associations – I’m rubbing shoulders with the elections director in Wayne county and [officials] all over the state, and we’re developing these relationships, and I’m saying, “You know, these are people just like me.” They care about their voters, they care about everyone having access to the polls. They care about making sure everything balances, and every vote is counted. And there’s no partisanship in that.Clerks should be non-partisan, because all we care about is allowing people to have access to the voting process.So no, there’s no fraud here.Given that you are part of this community, do you think that your evolution on this has given some credibility to election processes, with you having seen it from the inside and being able to communicate about it?I wish I had that much influence. It’s really just the people that are in my circle, that know me on a personal level, that I would have that kind of an impact on. So unfortunately, it’s not like that.No, it’s a battle that all of us election administrators have to fight – to help people understand what we’re trying to do and the process that’s in place to keep it accurate and honest. It’s going to take time and this election coming up – depending on how it goes – it might set us back another number of years in trying to get people to the point where they can trust our elections.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAmong our clerks and election inspectors, there are a good percentage of them that actually have concerns about people causing trouble in the precinct on these big elections. We’re working with our local law enforcement to try and visit the precincts, and even this one I had yesterday, I talked to the sheriff and I said: “It would go a long way if you just popped in there. It’s just one little precinct open, but they would love to see you there sometime.” And he did.Now that we’re getting a little bit closer to the election, what types of security threats are you preparing for? Or does it not feel that tense here?I would like to say it doesn’t feel that tense here, but we need to be prepared for anything.So we’re getting ready to do our inspector training – every election inspector in our county that will be working all the precincts in August and November will need to take their two-year recertification, and I’ll be doing that. So it’s a big ordeal. It takes two months to go through and I think there’s close to 300 people that we have to train.And in that, [security] is going to be one of the things that we talk about – and that’s the preparation. It’s: OK, what if this happens, what do you do? Who do you call?If I have the time, which is difficult with my time restraints right now, I’m trying to develop a document that will help facilitate communication if something does happen – whether it’s security, or whether it’s a weather issue, to facilitate communication between myself and the clerk’s office and the sheriff’s department or central dispatch, 911 operation and any county maintenance and stuff to be able to get things orchestrated, if we have to change a precinct location or if we have to deal with emergency in a precinct.View image in fullscreenAs the 2024 general election approaches, at the national and also local level, people who rejected the results of the 2020 election are getting more active. What’s been the most effective way that you’ve been able to push back against election denialism?I would say the most effective way is to have the time to be able to go out in the community and talk at public events or clubs and organizations and even the township and city meetings, and just give presentations to give that information about how our processes work.I’ve seen in other communities where they have more staff, and more time, where they can invite people in and have trainings just for the community on elections – not necessarily to make them inspectors, but to just teach them about the processes and inviting them in to conduct audits of an election precinct voluntarily.On a different subject, I am curious – is Stephanie Scott campaigning against you? Is that election a concern?To be honest, I’m not losing sleep over it. I put a lot of time and effort, blood, sweat and tears into this place. So I want to win. But if I lose, then I have a market where I can easily find another job that pays better and is less stressful and less hours. So it’s a win-win either way for me.So you’d stay in election administration?I do love election administration. And I love this community. And I want my family to grow up here. So yeah, I want to stick it out. More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump allies push bill to bar non-citizen voting, even though it’s already illegal

      by

      Dozens of Donald Trump’s allies and election denialists, including extremists like lawyer Cleta Mitchell and ex-adviser Stephen Miller, are promoting a bill to bar non-citizens from voting in federal elections, even though it’s already illegal and evidence that non-citizens have voted in federal races is almost nil.The push for the bill is seen as further evidence of extremist tactics used by ex-president Trump and his Maga movement to rev up his base of supporters for the 2024 election with outlandish claims designed to scaremonger over election fraud and far-right rhetoric detached from reality.It also fits a pattern, that many Trump allies appear to be laying the groundwork for false complaints of election fraud should Trump suffer electoral defeat again in 2024 – raising fears that the US could see a civic crisis similar to what followed the 2020 contest when his allies attacked the Capitol in Washington DC.The legislation’s rationale, which Trump touted at a Mar-a-Lago event with the House speaker, Mike Johnson, last month, has drawn sharp criticism from voting experts and even some Republicans.At the bill’s formal unveiling on 8 May, Johnson was joined by Mitchell, Miller and leaders of rightwing groups such as the Tea Party Patriots and the Arizona Freedom Caucus, who have formed the Only Citizens Vote Coalition, which boasts some 70 members pushing the measure.Johnson hyped the Save act – or Safeguard American Voter Eligibility act – framing illegal citizen voting as a more serious threat than Trump’s false charges that Joe Biden won the presidency in 2020 due to voting fraud.Johnson – whose 8 May press conference drew the bill’s lead sponsors, the senator Mike Lee of Utah and the representative Chip Roy of Texas – allowed that “we all know, intuitively, that a lot of illegals are voting in federal elections. But it’s not been something that is easily provable.”View image in fullscreenA lawyer and key Trump ally, Johnson was a central player in Trump’s baseless drive to overturn his 2020 defeat. Johnson led an amicus brief that more than 100 House GOP members signed backing a Texas lawsuit that tried to block the results in four key states that Biden won.“Even if you weren’t concerned about the drop boxes and the ballot harvesting and the mail-in ballots in 2020,” Johnson said on 8 May, referring to some of the phoney fraud claims Trump and his allies made about Biden’s win, “you definitely should be concerned that illegal aliens might be voting in 2024.”Actually, studies have shown that non-citizens are extremely unlikely to vote in federal elections, and that the minuscule number who attempt to vote have no impact on the outcome.One Brennan Center for Justice study that focused on the 2016 election revealed that just 0.0001% of votes across 42 jurisdictions, with a total of 23.5m votes, were suspected to include non-citizens voting, or 30 incidents altogether.A more recent Arizona study showed that less than 1% of non-citizens try to register to vote, but the large majority of those are believed to be errors, as the Washington Post initially reported.“These lies about widespread non-citizens voting fuel xenophobic fears and unwarranted doubts about the integrity of our elections. They appear intended to lay the groundwork to baselessly challenge any election results. Americans should be confident that our elections are safe and secure,” said Andrew Garber, an elections counsel at the Brennan Center.Even some Republican stalwarts say the bill is aimed at spurring more votes for Trump and his allies in Congress by raising the specter of a phoney election-fraud issue.“This is all political,” the veteran Republican consultant Charlie Black said. “The people who are promoting it know it is already illegal. But they hope by promoting the issue to convince voters that illegal immigrants are voting.”Other Republicans concur. “This is a messaging bill,” said former representative Charlie Dent, who noted it was “already illegal” for non-citizens to vote. “They’re trying to tie this to the border issue. It’s completely campaign-driven by challenging Democrats to vote against it.”Critics warn that the Save Act, which is seen as unlikely to pass the Senate if the House approves the bill, would make it harder to register people to vote since it would require citizenship proof such as a birth certificate or passport, which many Americans lack.Federal law now just requires voters to fill out a form swearing they are a US citizen.View image in fullscreenLittle wonder that the legislation is fueling hefty support from many well-funded, Trump-allied election-denialist groups and their leaders.Rightwing lawyer Mitchell, who runs the election-integrity network at the Conservative Partnership Institute where she is a senior legal fellow, has been in the vanguard of promoting conspiracies about non-citizen voting.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMitchell raised the specter of non-citizen voting in February on a conservative Illinois talk radio show where she said: “I absolutely believe this is intentional, and one of the reasons the Biden administration is allowing all these illegals to flood the country. They’re taking them into counties across the country, so that they can get those people registered, they can vote them.”A little-known group that Mitchell quietly set up last year, dubbed the Fair Elections Fund, which she is president of, is listed as a member of the Only Citizens Vote Coalition.A longtime election conspiracist, Mitchell was on Trump’s call with the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, on 2 January 2021 when Trump exhorted him to “find” 11,780 votes to overturn Biden’s win there.Similarly, Stephen Miller, who runs the rightwing litigation outfit America First Legal and served as Trump’s hardine immigration adviser, has been working zealously to promote fears of illegal voting by non-citizens.“Democracy in America is under attack,” Miller said at the 8 May press event. Miller decried the “wide-open border and obstruction of any effort to verify the citizenship of who votes in our elections”.View image in fullscreenNotwithstanding the dearth of evidence that non-citizen voting is a real threat, Miller has repeated bogus conspiracy theories that Democrats are bringing voters into the US to boost Biden winning in November.The Maga world’s obsession with non-citizen voting was palpable at a Las Vegas event last month hosted by the former Arizona sheriff Richard Mack, who leads the far-right Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association, which drew a number of sheriffs and other elected officials from several states. Mack, an ex-board member of the extremist Oath Keepers, said in April that “election fraud and the border go hand in hand”, a claim that lacks any evidence.Voting experts are alarmed at the growing efforts of Trump allies to highlight a virtually nonexistent threat and promote legislation that would require voters to show documents to register that millions of Americans do not have.“Millions of eligible American citizens lack easy access to a passport or birth certificate, so requiring eligible voters to show either one to register to vote would impose a significant hurdle with no real benefits for election security,” said Garber of the Brennan Center.Other voting specialists voice similar concerns.“Instead of taking meaningful action to strengthen our critical election infrastructure, Speaker Johnson is adding fuel to the fire by linking immigration policy to election security,” said Carah Ong Whaley, director of election protection at Issue One, a bipartisan political reform group.Instead, Whaley urged Johnson and his allies to work in a bipartisan way “to increase federal funding to ensure that officials have the resources they need to guard against growing foreign interference concerns and cybersecurity threats”.Republican figures also express strong misgivings about what is driving the bill’s backers.“Since Trump has surrounded himself with the losing general election narrative about fraud in 2020, he needs to change the narrative,” said Republican consultant Chuck Coughlin. “These types of proposals pushed by his allies are critical to him duping American voters to vote for him again.” More

    • 200 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Biden: what would Trump have done if the Capitol riots had been led by Black Americans?

      by

      Joe Biden has launched one of his most scathing attacks yet on Donald Trump’s record of racism, suggesting that the former US president would have acted differently to the January 6 2021 insurrection if it was led by Black people.The remarks, at a dinner hosted by a civil rights organisation in a critical swing state, pointed to an intensifying battle between Biden and Trump for African American voters ahead of November’s presidential election.“Let me ask you,” Biden said during an address to an NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) dinner in Detroit. “What do you think he would have done on January 6 if Black Americans had stormed the Capitol?”There was a collective gasp and murmur in the cavernous convention centre, where an estimated 5,000 guests had gathered. The president insisted: “No, I’m serious. What do you think? I can only imagine.”The great majority of Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol on January 6 in an attempt to overturn his election defeat were white. One was pictured carrying the flag of the Confederacy, which fought the 1861-65 civil war to in a failed effort to preserve slavery in the south.But as a congressional panel investigating the attack chronicled, Trump remained at the White House and took no action for hours, even as the mob threatened to hang his vice-president, Mike Pence. He eventually released a video calling for the rioters to stand down and go home.More than 1,265 defendants have been charged and hundreds imprisoned for their role in January 6. But Trump has described them as “patriots” and “hostages” and, as Biden noted in his remarks, suggested that he will pardon them if reelected.Biden was speaking during a campaign swing through Georgia and Michigan, two battlegrounds where the Black vote will be crucial. Opinion polls suggest that a small but significant percentage are turning from Biden to Trump.The president told the audience in Detroit: “You’re the reason Donald Trump was defeated for president. You’re the reason Donald Trump is going to be a loser again.”Biden touted his own record but kept returning to Trump and the threat he poses to democracy. He highlighted his own appointment of the first Black female supreme court justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson.“Let me ask you, who do you think he’ll put on the supreme court?” he asked. “Do you think he’ll pick anybody who has a brain?”Biden also accused Republicans of banning books and undermining African American history. “Extremists close the doors of opportunity, strike down affirmative action, attack the values of diversity, equality and inclusion,” he said.“They don’t see you in the future of America, but they’re wrong. We know Black history is American history.”The president also warned: “The threat that Trump poses in a second term is greater than the first.” He said “something snapped in Trump” after his 2020 election defeat and “he’s clearly unhinged”.The president received one of the biggest cheers of the night when he proclaimed himself a “union guy”, adding: “I walked the picket line with union workers here in Michigan. At the same time, Trump went to a non-union stop to show his disrespect for union workers.”Other speakers included Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan, tipped as a potential presidential candidate in 2028. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Marco Rubio says he would not accept 2024 election results ‘if it’s unfair’

      by

      The Republican Florida senator Marco Rubio said on Sunday he would not commit to accepting the 2024 presidential election results, insisting that “if it’s unfair” his party will “go to court and point out the fact that states are not following their own election laws”.Rubio’s statements on Meet the Press come as he is considered among former president Donald Trump’s top candidates for vice-president. Trump has continuously said falsely that the 2020 election was stolen.Those claims spurred the 6 January 2021 insurrection, during which participants stormed the Capitol building as lawmakers were in the midst of certifying the election results. Trump is facing a variety of charges related to alleged election meddling.When asked by host Kristen Welker: “Will you accept the election results of 2024, no matter what happens, senator?” Rubio replied: “No matter what happens? No.“If it’s an unfair election, I think it’s going to be contested … by either side.”Welker kept pushing Rubio to answer whether he would contest the results “no matter who wins”.“Well, I think you’re asking the wrong person,” Rubio said. “The Democrats are the ones that have opposed every Republican victory since 2000, every single one.”Welker repeatedly pointed out that Democrats who had issues with election results nevertheless conceded. Rubio, in turn, asked repeatedly whether Welker had asked Democrats this same question.Rubio – who did certify the 2020 election results, and said on that day that “democracy is held together by people’s confidence in the election and their willingness to abide by its results” – would not directly respond to whether Trump’s unwillingness to accept election results served to undermine confidence in democracy.He also refused to criticize Trump for his comments on Florida’s six-week abortion ban, during which Trump called the law a “terrible thing, a terrible mistake” – despite also repeatedly claiming credit for overturning the federal protection for abortion.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“I support any bill that protects unborn human life, but I don’t consider other people in the pro life movement who have a different view to be apostate,” said Rubio, who has long pushed for strict limits on abortion. “They just have a different view about the best way to approach this issue. We are not like the Democrats where, unless you are in favor of their bills that basically say, ‘Let’s just put in all this fancy language, but it’s not meaningful in terms of any restrictions.’”He played coy about whether he would agree to be Trump’s running mate in the 2024 presidential election, saying he had not discussed the possibility with Trump, but adding, “I think anyone who’s offered that job, to serve this country in the second highest office, assuming everything else in your life makes sense at that moment, if you’re interested in serving the country, it’s an incredible place to serve.” More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump floats idea of three-term presidency at NRA convention

      by

      Donald Trump flirted with the idea of being president for three terms – a clear violation of the US constitution – during a bombastic speech for the National Rifle Association in which he vowed to reverse gun safety measures green-lighted during the Biden administration.“You know, FDR 16 years – almost 16 years – he was four terms. I don’t know, are we going to be considered three-term? Or two-term?” The ex-president and GOP presidential frontrunner said to the organization’s annual convention in Dallas, prompting some in the crowd to yell “three!” Politico reported.Trump has floated a third term in past comments, even mentioning a prolonged presidency while campaigning in 2020. He has also tried distancing himself from this idea, telling Time magazine in April: “I wouldn’t be in favor of it at all. I intend to serve four years and do a great job.”The 22nd amendment, which was enacted following Franklin Delano Rosevelt’s fourth term, limits the presidency to two terms.In his speech to the NRA, Trump spoke on abortion, immigration and criticized Robert F Kennedy Jr as being part of the “radical left”. He also complained about the multiple criminal cases against him, including a gag order that bars him from commenting about witnesses in his ongoing New York City criminal trial.Trump has the NRA’s endorsement, but the organization has recently been reeling from legal and financial woe and is not quite the force in US politics it once was.The NRA is holding its convention less than three months after its former long-serving leader Wayne LaPierre – as well as other executives of the group – were held liable in a lawsuit centered on the organization’s lavish spending.Trump, who said he heard that gun owners “don’t vote,” pushed NRA members to hit the polls in November: “Let’s be rebellious and vote this time, OK?”Biden’s administration has worked to curb gun violence, including a host of executive actions and the launch of the first federal office to prevent gun violence, Politico noted.Biden has also pushed to broaden background checks while buying guns, and to end a workaround that permits firearm sales without background checks apart from traditional stores.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“If the Biden regime gets four more years, they are coming for your guns,” Trump railed.Only 12% of Americans believe gun laws should be loosened while 56% say they should be toughened and 31% assert they should be maintained as they are for now, according to an October poll conducted by Gallup. More

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump to address NRA after threatening to roll back gun control laws if elected

      by

      Amid fears that he would reverse gains made by gun control activists if elected to a second presidency this fall, Donald Trump on Saturday is scheduled to address the National Rifle Association’s annual convention.The former Republican president is set to take the stage in Dallas after threatening to roll back the firearms regulations enacted by the Joe Biden White House and expand gun rights – at the expense of American lives – if voters lift him to victory over the Democratic incumbent in November.Trump’s message marks a sharp contrast with Biden, who signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in 2022 and has hailed it as evidence of his commitment to gun safety, among other measures.Congress passed that law after a string of deadly, high-profile mass shootings, which nonetheless continue to occur. But it marked the first time in nearly 30 years that the US enacted a new major gun law at the federal level, expanding background checks for the youngest firearm buyers and investing in community violence intervention programs.Trump has hit the campaign trail openly expressing his wish to impose a law that would force states to recognize concealed carry firearm permits issued by other states. And his answer to the school shootings that the US has consistently seen throughout its modern history is to arm teachers and fund programs training educators how to shoot effectively.Most Americans do not agree with Trump’s approach to gun control. Only 12% of Americans believe gun laws should be loosened while 56% say they should be toughened and 31% assert they should be maintained as they are for now, according to an October poll conducted by Gallup.The NRA is holding its convention less than three months after its former long-serving leader Wayne LaPierre – as well as other executives of the group – were held liable in a lawsuit centered on the organization’s lavish spending. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Red flag? Samuel Alito scandal casts further doubt on supreme court’s impartiality

      by

      With less than six months to go before America chooses its next president, the US supreme court finds itself in a profoundly unenviable position: not only has it been drawn into the thick of a volatile election, but swirling ethical scandals have cast doubt on its impartiality.The US supreme court’s discomfort worsened dramatically on Thursday night when the New York Times published a photograph of an upside-down American flag being flown outside the Alexandria, Virginia, home of the hard-right justice Samuel Alito. The photo was taken on 17 January 2021, days after the insurrection at the US Capitol and days before Joe Biden’s inauguration.At the time, upside-down flags were proliferating as a symbol of Donald Trump’s false claim that the 2020 presidential election had been stolen from him. That one of the nine most powerful justices in the country – who has potential to wield enormous influence over the 2024 election – had a “stop the steal” icon flapping on his front lawn was, to put it mildly, incendiary.“There’s little doubt that the supreme court will play a large role in the 2024 election, and you have to now ask whether the flag incident will forever cloud the public’s view of its impartiality in those cases,” said Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, a non-partisan group advocating reform.The supreme court memorably handed the US presidency to George W Bush in its 2000 ruling Bush v Gore. Though no individual case so far this year has risen to that level, there is no doubt that the justices are deeply mired in the 2024 cycle.They have already decided that Trump cannot be ejected from the ballot for his role in the January 6 attack under the 14th amendment block on insurrectionists holding office. By the end of their term in June they are also set to rule on two other critical cases that go to the heart of Trump’s fitness to govern, and hence the presidential outcome.The first asks whether Trump has presidential immunity in the federal criminal prosecution over his “stop the steal” antics in 2020/21. The other, which could also determine whether he can be tried for his attempt to overturn the election, looks at whether January 6 rioters can be charged under the obstruction statute.All of that before we even get to the election itself, and the possibility of renewed trouble in November should there be close and contested counts in key battleground states. As one of the justices expressly warned in the 14th amendment case, further insurrections were not impossible.View image in fullscreen“I don’t know how much we can infer from the fact that we haven’t seen anything like this before [that] we’re not going to see something in the future,” the justice said. His identity? Samuel Alito.Until last Thursday, there had been plenty of talk about whether the supreme court was ethically equipped to tackle fundamental questions that could drastically change the course of November’s election. But most of it concerned Clarence Thomas.His wife, Ginni, is a hard-right activist who was an active participant in efforts to stop the certification of Biden’s victory. Yet Thomas has consistently refused to recuse himself from supreme court cases relating to January 6, even ones which directly invoked Ginni.After Thursday, we now have not one but two of the conservative justices whose spouses have engaged in apparent pro-Trump political activity. In his self-defense, Alito told the New York Times: “I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” putting it all down to a spat his wife, Martha-Ann, was having with neighbors who had defaced a Trump lawn sign.Some law scholars were prepared to give Alito the benefit of the doubt. Stephen Gillers, emeritus professor at New York University law school, said that he did not believe Alito knew the upside-down flag was flying, or that it was a coded message for “stop the steal”.“While Alito’s explanation for how it did happen is hard to believe, it is more credible than the view that he knowingly chose to fly the flag upside down knowing its import.”But there is no doubt that the optics of the flag are atrocious. As Gillers also noted: “It’s obviously so damaging to the court, whose reputation is already suffering.”The highest court has taken such a battering over its ethical standards – mostly relating to private jets, vacations and other material benefits rather than political activities – that it has been forced to adopt its first-ever ethical code. It says that a justice must recuse him or herself from a case where they have a “personal bias or prejudice”.That might involve their spouse being party to the proceeding or having an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding, the code states.Given what we now know about the behavior and convictions of both Ginni and Martha-Ann, it is arguable that there is at least a conversation to be had about whether Justices Thomas and Alito should disqualify themselves from any case relating to January 6. But there’s the rub.Under the new code, the supreme court polices itself on all ethical matters. Not only that – each individual justice polices him or herself, in effect sitting in judgment on themselves with even their eight colleagues having no say.Unsurprisingly, in the six months that the new code has been in existence very few justices have recused themselves. Where they have, only the liberal justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson have publicly explained their decisions.It all points towards more storms ahead. It is now all but inevitable there will be calls for both Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves as election year proceeds.“The fact that two justices live in households with people who believe the 2020 election was stolen is astounding and disturbing,” Roth said. “Will they heed the calls for recusal? Probably not. Is there any way to force them? No.” More