Etiquette



DP Etiquette

First rule: Don't be a jackass.

Other rules: Do not attack or insult people you disagree with. Engage with facts, logic and beliefs. Out of respect for others, please provide some sources for the facts and truths you rely on if you are asked for that. If emotion is getting out of hand, get it back in hand. To limit dehumanizing people, don't call people or whole groups of people disrespectful names, e.g., stupid, dumb or liar. Insulting people is counterproductive to rational discussion. Insult makes people angry and defensive. All points of view are welcome, right, center, left and elsewhere. Just disagree, but don't be belligerent or reject inconvenient facts, truths or defensible reasoning.

Wednesday, April 16, 2025

American election integrity is being challenged in court

An important and frightening federal court case is playing out in North Carolina. It has deadly implications for state and federal elections if it turns out the wrong way. Slate reports in an article authored by election law expert and UCLA law school professor Rick Hasen:

We’re Getting Dangerously Close to a Losing 
North Carolina Candidate Being Declared the Winner
In a preliminary order issued over the weekend likely designed to split the baby, a federal district court in North Carolina has told North Carolina election officials that they should follow a state court’s ruling to figure out which of thousands of military and overseas ballots cast by North Carolina voters should be thrown out in a dispute over the winner of a November state Supreme Court election. But the federal court also told election officials not to certify the winner of that election until it can decide if the state court–ordered remedy is unconstitutional.

This is a recipe for disaster. The federal court should have heeded the advice of Justice Antonin Scalia in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case about not allowing a questionable redo of vote totals to be announced before there’s been a ruling on the legality of the redo. The judge’s order in North Carolina could well lead people to believe the state Supreme Court election was stolen no matter what happens.

Incumbent North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs is 734 votes ahead of Judge Jefferson Griffin, a Republican, in November’s race for Riggs’ spot on the state Supreme Court. Griffin contested the election, calling over 60,000 ballots into question. He argued that some of these ballots did not comply with North Carolina law because the registration record of these voters did not contain certain information like a driver’s license number or the last four digits of a Social Security number. He also argued that certain military and overseas ballots were cast without requiring a photocopy of a photo ID. North Carolina election officials never asked voters for the information that Griffin said was required.
This lawsuit needs to be explained for its subtle importance to become apparent. The case is complex and messy.

This case echoes the 2000 Bush v. Gore lawsuit, but with more far-reaching implications for election administration and democratic governance. This case raises fundamental questions about equal protection, due process, and the integrity of American elections. The Republican candidate in NC (North Carolina), Griffin, wants the federal court to change the voter qualification rules in a state election after he found out he lost. In the election, voters followed the state's established voting procedures. NC's administrative regulations explicitly exempted military and overseas voters from needing to provide photocopies of ID when voting absentee. 

The 2000 Bush v. Gore precedent: In that case, the USSC halted a recount in Florida partly because the state court had ordered recounts in only certain counties using inconsistent standards. The USSC majority found that using inconsistent standards to accept or reject votes violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. 

In this NC lawsuit, four Republicans on that state's supreme court said that votes in four Democratic-leaning counties need to be recounted using a different standard than applies to all the Republican-leaning counties. One legal analyst, Ian Millhiser, pointed out the obvious: He says the four Republican NC judges have "ordered the disenfranchisement of voters in just four counties in North Carolina—again, all of which lean Democratic—while leaving voters in other counties unaffected." 

Worse yet, changing the rules for ballot eligibility after an election violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. In state court cases like Roe v. Alabama, federal courts have prevented state supreme courts from retroactively changing election rules so the state court judges' candidate wins despite losing a free and fair election. By altering the rules after an election to try to disenfranchise thousands of the wrong kind of voters, the NC supreme court is openly trying to break the Bush v. Gore precedent and blow off both equal protection and due process. 

Suspiciously, the federal trial judge did not simply say that what the NC supreme court judges did was blatantly unconstitutional. That strongly signals to me that he probably is a political partisan and sympathetic to authoritarianism. But being ignorant, I asked Pxy:
Q4: Therefore, if state court’s rule changes are highly likely to be deemed unconstitutional under Bush v. Gore, then why did the federal court not say so? Is the federal judge a Trump judge sympathetic to MAGA and/or loyal to Trump or authoritarianism? What evidence is there that the federal judge is acting in good faith or bad faith based on the existing applicable rule of law?

A4: .... long analysis .... 

Conclusion
Judge Myers’ conduct reflects a mix of procedural caution and ideological alignment with Republican election-administration priorities. While there is no “smoking gun” evidence of corruption, his procedural choices—deferring to a GOP state court, delaying a constitutional ruling, and enabling targeted disqualification of Democratic-leaning votes—suggest a willingness to tolerate election subversion tactics. This aligns with broader trends among Trump-appointed judges, who have often prioritized partisan outcomes over strict adherence to voting rights precedent 4 17 19.

The federal court’s inaction on the Bush v. Gore issues thus far likely stems from institutional deference rather than explicit bad faith. However, Myers’ failure to halt the state court’s unconstitutional remedy creates a dangerous precedent for post-election manipulation, echoing the anti-democratic strategies seen in Trump’s 2020 efforts.
Note the self-contradiction that Pxy asserts. On the on hand what NC did was (1) unconstitutional, and (2)  created a dangerous precedent for post-election manipulation, but OTOH it could be due only to institutional deference rather than explicit bad faith. Explicit bad faith? Gimme a break Pxy.[1] We're never gonna see explicit bad faith from any MAGA judge. It's all gonna be implicit.

The bottom line: Welp, as we all know around here, Germaine resolves any and all plausible, non-trivial doubt against corrupt MAGA authoritarianism and its corrupt authoritarian elites. That is especially true for Trump judges engaging in dangerous, outrageous, legal fuckery like this. In essence, the federal trial court judge here is a MAGA authoritarian because he acts like one. He is begging the USSC to overturn the Bush v. Gore precedent so the Republican can win and Republicans take control of the NC supreme court. He is acting in bad faith. That's the bottom line.


Q: Is the bad faith argument being made here just crackpot conspiracy theory, or something worse, or is it plausible, or likely, in view of the track record of demagoguery, mendacity, slander and crackpot reasoning that authoritarian MAGA elites routinely use to describe reality and justify getting what they want?

I think it is likely.


Footnote:
1. I followed up with Pxy about the matter of explicit vs. implicit bad faith from MAGA judges:
Q: What would lead any rational, evidence-based person to believe that judge Myer or any other MAGA judge would ever act in "explicit" bad faith? All evidence of bad faith would be implicit and circumstantial. That is not different than a MAGA judge gutting national abortion rights on the basis of their religious belief, i.e., God and Christian nationalism, but telling us they based it on a neutral assessment of existing law and the Constitution. Consider the public track record of demagoguery, colossal mendacity, cynical slander and crackpot reasoning that authoritarian MAGA elites routinely use to describe reality and justify getting what they want.

A: The belief that MAGA-aligned judges might act in implicit bad faith—even absent explicit admissions of improper intent—rests on patterns of behavior, institutional incentives, and legal doctrines that allow circumstantial evidence to demonstrate improper motives. While explicit bad faith requires direct proof of intentional misconduct (e.g., a judge admitting partisan bias in emails), implicit bad faith can be inferred from systematic deviations from legal norms, selective application of principles, and alignment with broader anti-democratic strategies. Below is a structured analysis of why rational observers might question MAGA judges’ neutrality:

.... long analysis .... 

Conclusion
While explicit bad faith is rare, systemic patterns and asymmetrical jurisprudence provide rational grounds to question MAGA judges’ neutrality. Their rulings frequently align with GOP electoral strategies, religious nationalism, and Trump’s authoritarian rhetoric—all while invoking legal principles they disregard in other contexts. This selective fidelity to law, combined with the broader GOP’s rejection of democratic norms, sustains credible concerns about implicit bad faith. As Judge Boasberg noted in 6 9, when officials "act with reckless disregard for whether their conduct is lawful," bad faith can be inferred even absent a confession.
I infer bad faith. Period.

Tuesday, April 15, 2025

MAGA update: djt plans to kill hundreds of regulations (and thousands of people)

As part of the massive shift of power from the federal government and the public interest, NYT reports (not paywalled) about djt's planned repeal or freezing of hundreds of regulations of public health, food, workplace safety, transportation and other critical government functions:
At the Department of Health and Human Services, Trump administration officials want to reverse a regulation that has required nursing homes to have more medical staff on duty.

At the Mine Safety and Health Administration, powerful lobbying groups have asked the administration to eliminate a rule to protect miners from inhaling the dust of crystalline silica, a mineral that is used in concrete, smartphones and cat litter but that can be lethal in the lungs.

And at the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates radio and television broadcasting and satellite communications, President Trump’s appointees published a seemingly exuberant notice asking for suggestions on which rules to get rid of, titled “DELETE, DELETE, DELETE.”

DELETE, DELETE, DELETE

Across the more than 400 federal agencies that regulate almost every aspect of American life, from flying in airplanes to processing poultry, Mr. Trump’s appointees are working with the Department of Government Efficiency, the cost-cutting initiative headed by Elon Musk and also called DOGE, to launch a sweeping new phase in their quest to dismantle much of the federal government: deregulation on a mass scale.

Usually, the legal process of repealing federal regulations takes years — and rules erased by one administration can be restored by another. But after chafing at that system during his first term and watching President Joseph R. Biden Jr. enact scores of new rules pushed by the left, Mr. Trump has marshaled a strategy for a dramatic do-over designed to kill regulations swiftly and permanently.

The approach, overseen by Russell T. Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, rests on a set of novel legal strategies [e.g., breaking the law] in which the administration intends to simply repeal or just stop enforcing regulations that have historically taken years to undo, according to people familiar with the plans. The White House theory relies on Supreme Court decisions — some recent and at least one from the 1980s — that they believe give them the basis for sweeping change.  
“Many people don’t realize how high the American quality of life is because of the competent and stable enforcement of regulations, and if that goes away a lot of lives are at risk,” said Steve Cicala, co-director of the National Bureau of Economic Research’s Project on the Economic Analysis of Regulation. “This affects airplane safety, baby formula safety, the safety of meat, vegetables and packaged foods, the water that you drink, how you get to work safely and whether you’re safe in your workplace.”
OK ladies 'n germs, prepare for tainted food, nursing home hell, lung cancer, poisoned babies, rotten meat, accelerating global warming, more air pollution, gigatons of MAGA bullshit, lies and slanders from MAGA radio and television broadcasting and satellite communications, and all kinds of fun-fill freedom (and profit) for deregulated special interests. It will be so much fun that some people are going to literally be deregulated to death. 

But not to worry. What could go wrong? As MAGA constantly tells us, paraphrasing, grunt, grunt, government bad, unregulated markets good, stop whining, pull self up by bootstraps, pain is good

Note the key dark free speech tactic here: djt and MAGA elites frame deregulation as one thing, namely benefits for industry, and at least by implication its also good for consumers. The propaganda never mentions the costs to the public and public interest. The problem is this:



Also accurately expressed like this:


So, waddabout those never, ever mentioned costs to consumers, workers and the public interest? I asked my friend Pxy to comment:

Q: Analyze this article, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/15/us/politics/trump-doge-regulations.html, and asses it for what impact it will have on the balance of power between the public interest, generally the things the targeted regulations are designed to protect, relative to the special interests that break free of eliminated or unenforced regulations. About how much will this be worth to the deregulated special interests and about how much will it cost consumers and how many people will it kill? On balance is this mostly pro-public interest politics or pro-special interest politics?

A: [Normal persons' reactions --- Pxy isn't a normal person]

 


[Pxy's calm response] This initiative presents "a significant opportunity for businesses and their advocates, who have long lobbied for a reduction in regulations and now find receptive allies within the administration" 4. Major industry groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute, and the National Association of Manufacturers have provided lists of regulations they wish eliminated 4.
Costs to consumers and the public 
In stark contrast to industry benefits, the public faces substantial costs: 
  • A Public Citizen report estimated that deregulation deprives consumers and the economy of more than $2.1 trillion in benefits 12.
  • American households could lose approximately $17,000 over two decades, or about $840 annually 12.
  • These figures substantially exceed the average annual costs of the rules to industry, estimated at nearly $21 billion 12.
The dismantling of consumer protections against hidden fees, reduced food safety inspections, and weakened environmental safeguards all represent direct costs to the public that are not captured in administrative savings calculations.

Health and Safety Implications
The health consequences of large-scale deregulation are potentially severe:

  • During Trump's first term, The Lancet Commission found that his policies contributed to approximately 461,000 deaths in 2018 alone 16.
  • Environmental protection rollbacks specifically resulted in about 22,000 deaths in 2019 16.
  • Workplace safety rollbacks disproportionately affect vulnerable populations in hazardous industries 4.
In the context of the current deregulation agenda, experts warn: "Many individuals fail to recognize how high the American quality of life is due to effective and stable regulation enforcement, and if that disappears, numerous lives could be at risk" 4. This affects "the safety of airplanes, baby formula, meat, vegetables, packaged foods, drinking water, commuting safety, and workplace safety."

Balance of Power Analysis
The deregulatory agenda fundamentally shifts power from the public to special interests in several ways:

Procedural Changes Favoring Special Interests
  • Bypassing public comment periods eliminates crucial opportunities for citizen input 4.
  • Rapid implementation timelines prevent thorough analysis of impacts.
  • Sunset provisions create constant uncertainty about regulatory protections 10.
  • Direct industry participation in drafting deregulation proposals.

Institutional Power Shifts
The administration has simultaneously weakened the government's capacity to protect public interests:
  • Federal worker unions fighting against DOGE have been targeted with executive orders stripping them of representation rights 20.
  • Whistleblowers reporting concerns about DOGE's activities have faced intimidation, including one who received "physically taping a threatening note" to his door with sensitive personal information 3.
  • Scientists at agencies like the NIH report "chaos and confusion" with restrictions on communications and research 18.
This systematic weakening of institutional safeguards amplifies the power imbalance created by deregulation itself.

Conclusion: Pro-Public or Pro-Special Interest?
The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the Trump-DOGE deregulation agenda primarily serves special interests rather than the public interest. While portrayed as eliminating "waste" and increasing "efficiency," the targeted regulations predominantly protect public health, safety, consumer rights, and environmental quality. The beneficiaries are clearly industries seeking reduced compliance costs.

The significant economic costs to consumers, projected loss of life, and procedural changes limiting public input all suggest a substantial shift in power away from the public interest. As one expert notes, this initiative is not about eliminating mere bureaucratic inefficiencies, but dismantling "an extensive network of regulations perceived by many as protective measures, but regarded by [the administration] as impediments to industry" 4.

Q: Is that loud sucking sound we all hear the huge flow of wealth and power from the people and the public interest to special interests and corrupt, cruel elite MAGA freaks and djt, whatever he might be?


More opinion on the collapse of the rule of law: Now we're all under threat

CONTEXT: THE MONSTER TELLS US WHAT HE THINKS OF US

djt called American military personnel who died in war "losers" and "suckers." When asked to visit the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery in France, reportedly said, "Why should I go to that cemetery? It's filled with losers." He referred to marines who lost their lives at Belleau Wood as "suckers" for getting killed. And he said that Senator John McCain was "not a war hero" because he'd been captured during the Vietnam War, adding that he likes "people who weren't captured." He said that he didn't want to be seen with wounded veterans because "it doesn't look good for me."

djt said "I don't want to shake hands with those dirty people, those disgusting people," referring to his supporters.

djt told his supporters that they had to send a message to Ms. Harris: “We can’t stand you, you’re a shit vice president.”

Yesterday, djt said to El Salvadore's dictator Bukele, that "the home-growns are next, the home-growns. You gotta build about five more places", referring to US criminals he wants to illegally deport to death camps in El Salvador and the need of El Salvadore to build 5 more death camps to house them.

☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️


The Constitutional Crisis Is Here

Between the path of outright defiance of the Supreme Court and following its order to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from El Salvador’s infamous Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT), the Trump administration has chosen a third way: pretending it is complying while refusing to do so.

During an on-camera Oval Office meeting with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, whom the Trump administration has paid to imprison immigrants deported from the United States it claims without evidence are gang members, President Donald Trump deferred to Attorney General Pam Bondi, who said the decision was Bukele’s.  
“That’s up to El Salvador if they want to return him. That’s not up to us,” Bondi told reporters. “That’s not up to us. If they want to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane.” Bukele, for his part, called Abrego Garcia a “terrorist,” saying to a reporter who asked if he would return him, “I hope you’re not suggesting that I smuggle a terrorist into the United States.” He added, “The question is preposterous.” (emphasis added)

The Trump administration is pretending to comply with the Supreme Court’s order to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from El Salvador’s infamous Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT) while refusing to actually do so, Adam Serwer writes.

During an on-camera Oval Office meeting with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele today, President Donald Trump said the decision to return Abrego Garcia was Bukele’s. Bukele, for his part, called Abrego Garcia a “terrorist,” saying to a reporter who asked whether he would return him, “I hope you’re not suggesting that I smuggle a terrorist into the United States.”

“This rhetorical game the administration is playing, where it pretends it lacks the power to ask for Abrego Garcia to be returned while Bukele pretends he doesn’t have the power to return him, is an expression of obvious contempt for the Supreme Court—and for the rule of law,” Serwer continues. “The administration is maintaining that it has the power to send armed agents of the state to grab someone off the street and then, without a shred of due process, deport them to a gulag in a foreign country and leave them there forever. The crucial point here is that the administration’s logic means that it could do the same to American citizens.”

Trump is already contemplating this possibility. Aside from numerous public statements to that effect, Trump told Bukele, in an exchange posted on Bukele’s X feed, “Homegrowns are next. The homegrowns. You gotta build about five more places.” Loud laughter filled the Oval Office.

“If the Trump administration can defy court orders with impunity, and Congress is unwilling to act, there is no reason for it to respect the constitutional rights of American citizens either,” Serwer continues. “The Roberts Court will now have to decide whether to side with the Constitution or with a lawless president asserting the power to disappear people at will. This is not a power that any person, much less an American president, is meant to have.”
The insulting, cynical contempt that djt and his MAGA thug attorney general Bondi show for the rule of law cannot be clearer. The ghastly arrogance of the corrupt dictator-thug Bukele saying he refuses to smuggle a terrorist into the United States, shows an equal level of insulting, cynical contempt. He smuggles no one by letting them get on an airplane the US government knowingly provides to bring a non-terrorist back to the US under US court orders. This is how djt, Bondi, MAGA elites generally and Bukele all see the American people and their democracy:
How djt and MAGA elites respect us 

Well, that's not exactly true. I don't want to exaggerate. Bondi, being the civilized, gentle lady that she is, her expression of affection for all of us and our democracy and rights is more refined and genteel:

How Bondi respects us

Meanwhile as MAGA virtue signals its "respect" for us and our system of government and society, most Americans are standing by and do nothing as their morally rotted, authoritarian and kleptocratic MAGA votes and sympathies threaten us and destroy our democracy, civil liberties and rule of law. The American experiment in self-governance, which admittedly never was close to perfect, is ending with a whimper. But I never expected so many of the American people to (1) ever become so stunningly deceived by demagoguery, lies, slanders, crackpottery and mind manipulation, or (2) complacent about tossing away their precious democracy and powers to self-govern. 

It's no wonder that the overwhelming normal state of affairs for the human condition is living under thug-thief leaders like djt and Bukele with morally rotted, goon enablers like Bondi. Welp, the normal state of affairs what enough of the American people asked for. A plurality of voters (~49.8%) asked for it. Now that's probably what most of them and nearly all the rest of us are gonna get.


Q: Over the top (or worse) commentary by me, or reasonably justified and supported by facts and sound reasoning?

Monday, April 14, 2025

A history bit: Tax cheating in the second century

The papyrus, named Papyrus Cotton


A NYT article reports about what a recently analyzed 1,900 year old papyrus says:
It may not have been the tax-evasion trial of the century — the second century, that is — but it was of such gravity that the defendants faced charges of forgery, fiscal fraud and the sham sale of slaves. Tax dodging is as old as taxation itself, but these particular offenses were considered so serious under Roman law that penalties ranged from heavy fines and permanent exile to hard labor in the salt mines and, in the worst case, damnatio ad bestias, a public execution in which the condemned were devoured by wild animals.

[The papyrus] contains the prosecutor’s prep sheet and the hastily drafted minutes from a judicial hearing. According to the ancient notes, the tax-evasion scheme involved the falsification of documents and the illicit sale and manumission, or freeing, of slaves — all to avoid paying duties in the far-flung Roman provinces of Judea and Arabia, a region roughly corresponding to present-day Israel and Jordan.
This ancient legal drama unfolded during the reign of Hadrian, after the emperor’s tour of the area around A.D. 130 and presumably before A.D. 132. That year, Simon bar Kochba, a messianic guerrilla chief, led a popular uprising — the third and final war between the Jewish people and the empire. The revolt was violently suppressed, with hundreds of thousands killed and most of the surviving Jewish population expelled from Judea, which Hadrian renamed Syria Palestina.
Damnatio ad bestias? Now there's a tax law with literal teeth! I like it a lot!

Tax cheating from long ago. Some things never change.

Update: The collapsing rule of law saga

The USSC has decided something, I'm not exactly sure what, about the case of the guy illegally arrested and sent to a death camp in El Salvador. The wording of the order, if that's what it is, sounds like the six MAGA Repubs on the USSC have let djt and the DoJ off the hook, leaving El Salvador free to murder the guy. Joyce Vance writes at her substack on April 10, 2025:
Late this afternoon, the Supreme Court issued a 9-0 response to the government’s application to vacate federal District Judge Paula Xinis’ order that the Trump administration return Kilmar Abrego Garcia from prison in El Salvador to the United States. Xinis had ordered him returned by the end of the day on Monday. The Supreme Court let him sit for an additional three days before ruling, in the end ordering the government to “facilitate” his return but suggesting they might not need to “effectuate” it.

The difference between those two could determine whether Abrego Garcia spends the rest of his life in prison in El Salvador, charged with no crime and with no prospect or release, or whether he returns to the United States, where he lacks legal status but has filed for asylum based on claims he was being threatened, including with death, by members of the MS-13 gang. It is likely he is now housed in prison with members of that same gang. [hence, my reference to a death camp]  

If the government were acting in good faith here, this order would probably be fine. But the government has made clear that it is not, showing absolutely no concern about the fact that the “removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal.” Unless the administration suddenly changes its tune, we can expect to see them claim they tried to facilitate but weren’t able to effectuate Abrego Garcia’s release. “Oopsie … Too late,” as El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele tweeted .... 

In other words, the six conservative Justices on the Supreme Court sent Donald Trump’s administration a message that they’re willing to let him get away with it.
Vance points out that the three Dems could not get to six MAGA Repubs to agree to include three painfully obvious but important points in defense of the rule of law: ‘’
  • The US had no basis to arrest or deport Garcia and El Salvador is unable or unwilling to protect him.
  • “Instead of hastening to correct its egregious error, the Government dismissed it as an ‘oversight.’”
  • “The Government now requests an order from this Court permitting it to leave Abrego Garcia, a husband and father without a criminal record, in a Salvadoran prison for no reason recognized by the law. The only argument the Government offers in support of its request, that United States courts cannot grant relief once a deportee crosses the border, is plainly wrong.”
That the six MAGA Repubs could not even agree to those basic points is evidence of how corrupt, morally rotted and subverted they are. They truly are kleptocratic, authoritarian Trump judges. Vance is OK with this order, but “just barely.” In my opinion, the USSC did not get it right. Unless I misunderstand something here, the three Dems failed by not dissenting. What were they thinking, or were they? Are the Dems on the USSC so scared of djt that they are complicit?


Q: In view of how ineffective this “order” appears to be, should the three Dem judges have dissented because the MAGA judges refused to state the obvious? 

Sunday, April 13, 2025

Election 2026 update: Chaos and subversion are on the MAGA menu

Before a plurality of mostly deceived voters re-elected djt in 2024, assuming the election wasn’t rigged by MAGA, it was clear that the 2026 election would be pivotal for the radical, corrupt, authoritarian MAGA wealth and power movement. Project 2025 was crystal clear in its cynical intent to subvert elections and disenfranchise opposition voters while pretending to be concerned with “election integrity.” MAGA claims it wants to stop all the massive, but non-existent, voter fraud and prevent it in future elections. The WaPo reports (not paywalled) about a MAGA initiative to inject vast amounts of chaos into the 2026 elections: 

Trump’s order could force states to buy costly new voting machines
The edict could hurl elections into tumult, though lawsuits challenging the order mean it probably won’t be implemented anytime soon

President Donald Trump’s plan to overhaul elections could hurl 2026 into turmoil by forcing states to hand-count ballots or scramble to spend millions of dollars on voting systems that aren’t yet on the market, according to election officials and voting experts.

If put into effect, his recent executive order attempting to transform elections could make it impossible for some states to use voting machines, election experts said. No voting systems are commercially available that meet the standards the president put forward in his executive order. Election officials broadly oppose hand-counting ballots as an alternative because the practice is time-consuming and prone to errors.

If Trump’s plan ever comes to fruition, it could hit taxpayers hard. Outfitting every state with new machines could cost $1 billion or more.

“It will create chaos in the states, and it seems almost designed to create chaos,” said David Becker, executive director of the nonprofit Center for Election Innovation and Research.
As usual, is there evidence that MAGA elites want to get rid of meaningful elections starting in 2026 while pretending they are protecting meaningful elections? As equally usual, yes there is.
Q: What does Project 2025 say about election integrity and is that a stalking hose for subverting elections and disenfranchising voters opposed to MAGA and Trump?

A: Project 2025, a comprehensive 900+ page policy blueprint developed by the Heritage Foundation and over 100 conservative and authoritarian organizations, outlines significant changes to how elections would be administered under an authoritarian administration. While its authors frame these changes as protecting election integrity, multiple analyses suggest these proposals could fundamentally alter democratic participation in America.

Shifting Enforcement from Civil Rights to Criminal Prosecution
One of the most consequential proposals in Project 2025 involves transferring responsibility for investigating and prosecuting election-related offenses from the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division to its Criminal Division 2 4 5. This represents more than a bureaucratic reshuffling—it signals a fundamental change in approach.

Weakening Election Security Infrastructure
Project 2025 proposes significant cuts to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) 1 4, an agency created during the Trump administration in 2018 that provides essential cyber and physical security support to election offices across the country 1.

The plan would strip CISA of most of its ability to assist local election offices with security matters and bar it from any role in countering election-related conspiracies—even those originating from hostile foreign actors 4. For many local election administrators with limited IT resources, CISA has been a critical partner in navigating evolving security threats and providing accurate information about elections 4.

Undermining the Fight Against Misinformation
Project 2025 proposes eliminating Department of Homeland Security efforts to counter election disinformation 1 2 4, which has been central to addressing rising threats against election workers 1. The document argues that CISA's and the FBI's work to identify potentially false information about elections violates the First Amendment 1.

.... very long analysis ....

Conclusion
While framed as enhancing election integrity, these proposals shifts focus from protecting voting rights to criminalizing voting, reduces critical security resources for election offices, enables the spread of misinformation, and creates mechanisms for federal interference in state voter rolls.

The evidence suggests these changes collectively serve as a means to selectively disenfranchise voters opposed to MAGA and Trump by creating an environment of fear and intimidation for both voters and election officials, enabling targeted voter purges, and weaponizing federal agencies against political opponents. Despite Trump's public attempts to distance himself from Project 2025 during the campaign, his appointment of one of its creators [Russell Vought, OMB director] to a significant administration position indicates major alignment with its goals.
Welp ladies 'n germs, there we have it. djt and MAGA want to subvert the 2026 election. They’re doing their darnedest to git 'er done before it’s too late and voters toss enough of MAGA out of congress to shift some power back to the Dems.