The Election that Could Decide the Election
At first blush, you would think that Doug Mastriano would be a good candidate for governor. An army veteran who served in the Gulf War and Afghanistan, an author of history books and a stalwart Trump supporter. Which why I was surprised when a commercial came on this morning alleging that Mastriano intends to raise taxes 60%, wants to increase mail-in voting and wants people infected with COVID-19 to register.
Wait, what?
Needless to say, none of this is true.
- Mastriano has a crackpot plan to eliminate property taxes in Pennsylvania. These are the taxes that fund schools and local governments. He intends to replace those revenues with … well, something that may involve taxing college endowments. But if you replaced those property taxes with income taxes, that would indeed by a gigantic increase. That’s assuming Mastriano cares about fiscal responsibility which is always a big if with today’s GOP.
- The voting claim comes from his support for Act 77, which established no-excuse mail-voting for Pennsylvania. This was passed before Republicans realized that Democrats might like to do mail-in voting too and that meant it was a Threat to the Republic, despite the lack of any evidence — any evidence at all — that mail-in voting was a problem. Mastriano now wants to repeal Act 77, mandate in-person voting and take handling elections out of the hands of the Secretary of State.
- The final claim comes from the early days of the pandemic. Mastriano did indeed initially call for public disclosure of COVID-19 patients. He has since inveighed against mask and vaccine mandates. He has also promoted bills to mandate treatment of COVID-19 with ivermectin, HCQ and other quack medicines. At one point, he held a mask-burning party and told people to confront store employees who told them to mask up.
In other words, the ad, which is probably funded by one of the many Republicans competing for the GOP gubernatorial nomination, misrepresents his positions. Mastriano is a down-the-line Trumpist. But while my commitment to truth and accuracy requires me to point out that he’s being unfairly maligned, my dedication to my adopted state requires to point out that this is Mastriano being hoist by his own petard. You see, Doug Mastriano is no stranger to these kind of shenanigans. He’s just usually on the other side.
Over the short time he has been in office, he has become a fountainhead of misinformation and conspiracy theories. He promoted Q-Anon conspiracy theories (although he’s now tried to cover that up). He was a key part of Republican lawmakers’ attempt to over-ride the voting in Pennsylvania and send Trump-supporting electors to Washington. He appeared at the “Stop the Steal” rally on January 6 but claims that he left before the violence began. However, video footage has shown this to be untrue. You can read a profile here that describes some of his views and his association with extreme elements. His endorsements are practically a who’s who of election conspiracy theorists — Mike Flynn, Rudy Giuliani, Jenna Ellis and Mike Lindell.
So why write a blog post about another Q-Anon Trumpist lawmaker?
Because there is a chance that this one may be the next governor of Pennsylvania.
I realize that the Pennsylvania Senate Race — featuring a carpet-bagging physician that Oprah inflicted upon a weary nation — has sucked up all the media attention. But there is actually a governor’s race going on here too. Pennsylvania’s gubernatorial primary is next Tuesday and Mastriano is currently leading a crowded pack in polling, with President Pro Temp Jake Corman having tumbled badly from an initial massive lead. Joe Szymanski of Elections Daily emphasized to me that there are double-digit undecideds so there is still a chance for Lou Barletta — who is significantly less out there — to overtake him. But it’s going to be close. And it’s very telling that the main attack ads against Mastriano are arguing that he’s not extreme enough.
The Democrats’ nominee for governor will be current attorney general Josh Shapiro, who wrote a scathing response to Texas’ “Hail Mary” lawsuit that tried to get the Supreme Court to overturn the election. Shapiro is a left-of-center Democrat who, all things being equal, would seem a shoe-in. But Pennsylvania is a very purple state and the race is currently rated a toss-up. If November turns into a disaster for the Democrats, Shapiro could have a big hill to climb.
In short, I’m writing about Mastriano because no one seems to be talking about the very real possibility that the next governor of Pennsylvania — a critical swing state — will be a Q-Anon supporting, conspiracy-theory indulging, COVID-19 denying January 6 attendee. The Republicans currently hold the Assembly and are unlikely to lose it. These are the folks who could have the fate of the nation in their hands if the 2024 election is as close as the 2016 and 2020 elections were. A Governor Bartlett, with a Republican Assembly, may attempt to overturn the election if the Democrats win in 2024. A Governor Mastriano is almost guaranteed to.
There is not nearly enough attention being paid to the state and local elections that could make 2024 into a national nightmare. I think it’s about time we started paying attention. Because this is just one of dozens of elections around the country you’re not hearing anything about that could have big consequences down the road.
Add to this the efforts to replace standard Republicans with Big Lie supporters in almost every state where they have the power, and we are looking at a certainty that they will at least attempt to overthrow the 2024 election if it doesn’t go their way.
If American democracy in fact dies in 2024, no one can say we weren’t warned or that we were powerless.Report
He seems a lot less serious than the typical serious candidate. One hopes the voters will notice.Report
Considering that only one of the Trump backed House candidates in yesterday’s WV and NE primaries won, we can only hope they will.Report
I take away a different story from Nebraska than most of the media are. Trump’s endorsed candidate for governor had nothing but that endorsement — a political newcomer, several women have accused him of groping them, the sitting governor and basically every business organization in the state all endorsed one of his opponents. Despite all of that, the Trump candidate still finished second in a 33.9/30.2/25.8 split among the top three candidates.Report
As Chip keeps noting, there’s a sizable constituency for the Trumpian message in the US generally.Report
Chip routinely lumps together anyone who votes for the GOP with the nastiest aspect of them. Team Blue gets a pass on that reasoning however.
Both Red and Blue are large coalitions. Being a mono-voter on the subject of gun control or abortion doesn’t also make you against immigration, just like voting pro-choice doesn’t make you a socialist.
I also think we’re over thinking Trump’s message. We like reason, he’s almost entirely emotion. After he got people to buy into his “I’m rich and famous and interesting, vote for me I’m superman” act, there were legacy costs to switching.Report
This is yet another race – at the state level – where the Democrats focus for two decades in the next White House occupant may well hurt them. If this guy gets the nod, what will Dems do to counter him in a meaningful way?Report
OK, I’m not trolling. I view the Alito leak and the protests outside SCOTUS members’ homes on par with January 6th. They’re attempts to undermine the Constitutional system of government. The protests are illegal; I’m not sure about the leak itself. Showing up at an official’s house is no different from erecting a gallows across from the Capitol. Opinions?Report
lolReport
Ok I’ll take the bait.
Showing up at an abortion doctors house is illegal?Report
I don’t think so, but if I’m wrong, I’m wrong. It’s not something I’d do, either way. Showing up at a judge’s house is illegal though.Report
Why?
I mean, lets assume the protest is peaceful and has no threats of violence, but merely chants and placards.
Lets assume it is at the home of a liberal justice like Sotomayor.
Where’s the problem?Report
Title 18 Section 1507
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.Report
I’m not sure which law this is, but I’m supportive of bans on “obstructing or impeding” but “influencing” is overly broad.
Unless narrowly interpreted to be synonymous with “coercion” then it literally can make it illegal to walk by a judges house and say “I disagree with you!”Report
I don’t know what to tell you or Mediaite, but the US Criminal Code is the US Criminal Code.Report
OK, lets issue arrest warrants for every single member of the Right To Life who, every January on the anniversary of Roe, with the intent of influencing the Supreme Court in the discharge of their duty, picketed and paraded near a building housing a court of the United States.Report
The space outside the Supreme Court building is exempt from this – I think by a Supreme Court ruling – but I’d have no problem if that exemption were dropped. I’ve attended the March for Life before, always with mixed feelings. I do think there’s a difference, however, between a symbolic act like protesting outside the Supreme Court Building and a personal act like protesting outside a home. Also just as a practical matter a justice is safer in a big building with guards.Report
I’m generally sympathetic to the idea of insulating judges from political pressure. Again, I’m imagining a bunch of Proud Boys outside Sotomayor’s house.
But I notice a certain schizophrenia in how we talk.
When the subject is the 2nd Amendment we hear lots of blood curdling language about the tree of liberty, “soapbox, ballot box, ammo box”, and how the whole point of the Amendment is to overthrow tyrants by, presumably, gunning down judges.
We see a lot of Gadsden flags and quotations about how the government should fear its people.
And I recall hearing an awful lot of talk in 2016 about how the norms and traditions in Washington were rotten and corrupt and needed to be shaken up. How the elites form an insular club, isolated and detached from the people they ostensibly serve.
So it’s odd now to hear about how maybe the Washington elite should be insulated and detached after all.Report
The idea of insulating judges from political pressure, particularly at the Supreme Court level, only makes sense if you think of the Supreme Court as an apolitical institution, which it very obviously is not (nor has it ever been).
Also, in general, when 9 unelected people whose only real qualifications are law degrees and knowing the right political actors can decide things that can profoundly impact the lives of tens, even hundreds of millions of people, it seems to me we, the people affected, should be able to make it clear how we feel about their decisions. If they don’t like that, perhaps they should be in another line of work.
Better still, let’s just abolish the institution. Then no one will have to worry about people showing up to their homes because of how they decide cases.Report
We are in this situation because the Right to Life wants to get rid of Roe more than anyone wants to stop them.
Whatever you change the rules to allow, the RtL is still going to want it more and be more willing to protest and play dirty than anyone else.
When you change the rules you change them for everyone.
The expectation should be that this change, i.e. allowing threats against judge’s families, would make the RtL stronger because they’ll go there all the time.Report
They’ve already got a long list of murders, bombings and assaults so its not like they aren’t already cranked to 11.
What a lot of people are missing is that the post-Roe world will be significantly more draconian than pre-Roe.
Given the new surveillance/ security state and technology, plus the increasingly extreme positions taken by the anti abortionists, then couple that with the reliance on private vigilantism, and the old protections which women relied upon pre-Roe are gone.
All of which means that instead of just the underclass feeling the iron fist, it will be the affluent as well.Report
There is a tiny element that commits crimes, and then we have about 20% of the population which doesn’t but really wants to outlaw abortion.
If we make harassing judges legal and the new normal, your “11” will become “11000”.
It’s is a serious mistake to think they’re already as bad as they can be so it doesn’t matter if we change the rules.
The underlying problem is they want it more than you do. Changing the rules so your team can do bad things legally is just going to increase your disadvantage.Report
If you’ve ever passed a Planned Parenthood, or spoken to clinic worker, you know that the pro-forced pregnancy people are well beyond holding signs and chanting outside a judge’s house. I mean, we’re talking about a movement that at times condones murder, and has committed them.Report
Yes. Whatever the rules are, they’re going to go to the bleeding edge of them and with a lot more manpower.
So, you get to hold signs and chant outside a judge’s house ONCE every few years, they get to do it 24/7 until he retires.
That lets them force out a pro-choice judge and sends a warning to all other pro-choice judges that this is what life is going to be like.Report
It’s unhealthy that you have to picture bad things happening to one of your own to muster up empathy. As for the Gadsden Flag crowd, you should take it up with them if any of them comment here.
Ideally, the courts should be different from any of our other institutions. They should be non-political and insulated. Anything that politicizes the Court – the Garland snub, court packing schemes, leaks of first drafts, activist rulings – should be opposed.
ETA – Chris posted before I did, and I think my whole comment here could be summed up by saying that Chris is completely wrong.Report
You are dealing in what should be. Chris is dealing in what is, as is Chip.Report
I’m also reflecting on the founders and how their vision of a republic didn’t seem to exclude any part of the government as being free of politics, or that politics itself as being particularly bad.
They famously and viciously fought about politics and weren’t shy about using bare knuckle tactics when needed.
As much as I like the idea of a nonpolitical branch, part of it reeks of the monarchy, where peasants are discouraged from criticizing the clergy or court. Where the peasants greet each new decree with a weary shrug of the shoulders.Report
It was more that the Founders never expected the Court to be allowed to become so political or powerful.Report
I don’t think it’s that simple. The founders also held skepticism of what in their minds was too much democracy, hence the checks and balances and counter-majoritarian measures. The courts all need to be able to make unpopular decisions and I would say some of the judiciary’s finest moments have been when it has done just that.
The problem we have is actors in the political branches making promises about what their appointees will and won’t do on particularly controversial questions of law. Chris is of course right that the phenomenon isn’t new. Whether we should embrace it or treat it as a regrettable but maybe to some degree inevitable situation we should aspire to avoid is a different question.Report
All the more ironic then, that the opinion which sparked these protests held that a right only exists if it is well established and popular.
How well established and popular is the idea that the justices homes are off limits?Report
I think the irony is that if they stuck to their own doctrines it probably wouldn’t be happening.Report
How well established and popular is the idea that the justices homes are off limits?
From NBC: Most US voters don’t agree with doxing of Supreme Court justices, poll finds
Report
There’s probably a reason why conservatives aren’t pursuing this argument.Report
From what I understand, they are.
And, in response, liberals are asking whether it’s really that popular or established to not do this sort of thing.Report
Please proceed, Governor.Report
Yeah, and I posted evidence that it’s not going over so well.
I suppose you can take comfort in how principled you are.Report
You’re sure opening that door is a good idea? That it’s always going to be Team Blue harassing/threatening Red judges?
Pro-life is more determined, has more fanatics, and overlaps with the pro-gun people.
That combination suggests opening the door to harassing judges won’t simply be your side doing it to the judges you don’t like.
Big picture, the processes we have are probably the ones we want to have. It’s unfortunate that the Pro-life side is accepted to the degree it is. However they’ve followed the rules and will get the chance to have their (really bad) ideas put in place.
We’ll experiment with them. We’ll find out they’re not workable. We’ll end up with a political solution that looks a lot like Roe, but coming through the political process it will no longer being poison to the SC.
And yeah, this is going to take a few decades and it’s going to be a real problem in some states. People will die from it.
Democracy doesn’t always mean getting perfect, or even good outcomes.Report
Oooh! This is an opportunity to use the RICO!Report
It is never an opportunity to use RICO.Report
The moment you say “I know where you live, you’d better do the right thing or I will be very unhappy” you’re passed “no threats of violence”.Report
Does this apply to all government officials at all levels of government?Report
It probably should. “Protesting” at city hall and other publicly owned places is fine, there’s a lot of protection on that.
Intruding on someone’s off-duty personal space seems intrinsically threatening. Calling it “a protest” doesn’t change that part of the message is “we know where you sleep”.Report
There is an intrinsic bias to this though.
I live in a dense urban area.
If I were a judge, would it be forbidden to hold a protest march in downtown?
And although I am sympathetic to the implied threats, I think that allowing the citizens to publicly shame and shun our elected servants makes freedom of protest a compelling issue.Report
And the family of those elected officials?
If we’re talking about the Mayor, he’s got an office and a city hall. You can protest there without threatening his family. If that’s not acceptable then threatening his family isn’t a side effect.
If we’re talking about Judges, they’re supposed to be shielded from angry mobs and political pressure.Report
Says who? If it’s “illegal,” it’s because someone with say said so.Report
SCOTUS apparently –
https://www.mediaite.com/news/supreme-court-ruling-making-it-illegal-to-protest-at-justices-homes-was-about-protecting-privacy-of-an-abortion-doctor/Report
But: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1993/93-880Report
Well I guess our legal eagles will have to sort this out then.Report
…in a majority opinion authored by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court found that the state of Florida could only restrict protesters to the extent necessary to allow the clinic to run and the staff to live in their homes without interference.Report
Yeah, Florida had a 300 ft rule (for both homes and clinics), and the court ruled both were too restrictive and violated protestors first amendment rights. It didn’t fully overturn Frisby v. Schultz, the case in Philip’s link, but it basically means you can protest outside an abortion provider’s home as long as you’re not too loud and they can get in and out of their home, if I’m not mistaken. I’ll let Burt or one of the other lawyers hereabouts say for sure.Report
“Showing up at an abortion doctors house is illegal?”
It’s exactly as illegal as walking down the street with a gun.Report
I agree with you. Sinister and just absolutely weird to see otherwise rational people who act like it’s NBD.Report
We keep being told January 6th was “normal” and “patriotic.” But sure, lets BSDI this to death shall we?Report
Did Kristin or I, or anyone else on this site, say that January 6th was normal and patriotic? By our comparing it to something we both find loathsome, how can you make that claim?Report
Since when did we confine our analogies or our comments strictly to the people on OT?
January 6th was a coup attempt. A violent one at that. People holding signs and chanting outside a judge’s house is nowhere the same level of bad.Report
DO YOU THINK THAT DEATH THREATS ARE OKAY?!?!?!?
Oh, I wasn’t confining my analogy strictly to the people on OT.
There. That was easy.Report
There were, to my very imperfect knowledge, no death threats made during the protests at Kavanaugh or Robert’s houses. A Gallows was constructed on January 6th to hang Mike Pence and Nancy Pelosi, among others.
Can you see how someone equating these two forms of protests might be missing a big difference?Report
Oh, I wasn’t confining my criticism of death threats against sitting justices to the people in the drum circle outside of their homes.Report
Senate just amended a law, unanimously, to give protective services to Supreme Court family members if the agency thinks that’s needed.
RE: Protests outside being on par with Jan 6th.
It’s crossing lines that shouldn’t be crossed. It was non-violent and went to extremes to be non-violent so there’s that. Jan 6th crossed a lot more lines and is having multiple people spend time in jail.
So I disagree on the specifics but agree on the spirit.
RE: The Leak
My understanding is it’s probably not illegal depending on who did it and how. It’s almost certainly career suicide and/or disbarment.Report
It isn’t a great norm but as long as it stays peaceful I don’t see how its apples to apples. 1/6 would not have been nearly as notable if all that happened was a protest outside the Capitol.Report
Agree it has nothing to do with 1/6… but not sure I think it’s a good norm, even if peaceful… here are my thoughts:
1. Assemble to protest Supreme Court decisions in general? Fine.
2. Assemble to protest Legislation? Also Fine
3. Assemble to ‘peaceably’ protest/influence individual Legislators? Still fine.
4. Assemble to ‘peaceably’ protest/influence individual Judges? Not fine.
Part of what our system looks to do is make Judges *not* directly petitionable … that’s a kind of blackmail/bribery/coercion that the system oughtn’t tolerate at an individual or collective level. If the Judiciary can be ‘bought’ via violence/coercion/threats *because* they are insulated from direct democratic influence then we’ve participated in the dismantling itself.
We ‘lean’ on Politicians, we don’t lean on judges. This is something that should be denormalized, even if the de-normalizing results in greater ‘more vigorous’ (but still peaceable) protesting against individual Legislators.
Regarding individual citizens, i don’t think we have a ‘right’ to Assemble/Petition/Protest – but those matters ought to be handled by local ordinances against harassment/unruly behavior, etc.Report
It’s definitely not the kind of thing you’d expect to see if everything was functioning the way it’s supposed to. But I also think it’s the natural conclusion of the path we’ve been following for some time with the court and with this issue. We could get into a long discussion about who started it (hell maybe the court started it in the 60s) but what’s important is that no one in the political branches has seen fit to end it. I don’t want to deprive the protesters of agency but I struggle to put the weight of the situation on them, again, assuming it all stays peaceful and orderly.Report
Well if it’s just John Cleese in a cowboy hat moving people along with a few strategic ‘what’s all this then’ arch words to the crowd level of frustration, then that’s how it should be handled. But moved along it should be.Report
JMO, but the conspiracy theories about q-Anon seem more pervasive and at least as unbalanced than the actual q-Anon conspiracy theories did/do.Report
I don’t think I could vote for someone who believes Q-Anon stuff. I read the New Yorker article about Mastriano, though. Its thrust was Christian nationalism and it barely laid a glove on him. He’s patriotic, he’s religious, there are some organizations that are dangerous, lots of professors have studied those organizations and have quotes about them. That was about it.Report
And if it was between them and a Democrat?Report
Depends on the office and the character of the candidates, but I don’t feel obligated to cast a ballot in every race.Report
What are your views on Kathy Barnette? She seens to be a stalking horse candidate.
Josh Shapiro has won state wide elections twice in Pennsylvania so he is not that wild as a candidate. The metrics point out that 2022 should be a great year for Republicans but it seems that they might Aiken themselves a lot. At least that is my hope.Report
It would be very Pennsylvanian if Barnette won the primary. Both parties often pick the most pro-life candidate in the primaries.Report