Convention of States
The Right Wing Takeover Has Only Just Begun
Summary: For decades, right wing actors have been steadily tearing apart critical protections of our democracy and stacking the deck in their favor. Civil rights and liberties that were hard fought and then eventually assumed have slowly disappeared. Voting rights. Privacy. Worker projections. Economic mobility. And soon, as we now know, people’s rights to their own bodies. Nothing happens overnight and the process has been slow, steady and painful because the right wing in America is deliberate, organized and patient. Today we examine yet another long-term, right wing attempt to hijack the political system called a Convention of States. Libertarian conservatives have been playing a long chess game while Democrats and liberals have been playing checkers.
You’re going to think this is uncharacteristically hysterical on my part. Because the subject today, while hiding in plain sight in the Constitution, has been essentially unimaginable since it was first conceived. Something called a Convention of States. But bear with me because you need to hear this.
Today we’re going to examine a scenario that was once considered a longshot and now has a mathematical chance to actually happen within the next decade. And if you’re thinking, oh a decade is a lot, remember that a decade ago gay marriage wasn’t legal yet, Twitter hadn’t gone public and House of Cards wasn’t released yet. Trump was still a reality TV star. And few people imagined that Roe v. Wade would be on the verge of being struck down.
It’s time to start imagining the unimaginable.
Chapter One: So what the fuck is this thing?
Let’s Start with the issue at hand. Article V of the Constitution.
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
Let’s go through this carefully before we dig into the movement to call a convention. Article V of the Constitution outlines the ways in which the Constitution can be amended. The operative word here is “outlines” because amendments have come about in different ways and while there is consensus on the existing amendments, there are disagreements among scholars about the viability of certain paths.
The first line says that two thirds of both Houses can propose amendments. This is how every successful amendment thus far has been proposed. The first 10, which we know as the Bill of Rights, were ratified together in 1791. Since then only 17 additional amendments have been ratified, with one of them—the 21st—repealing another—the 18th. If you’re wondering how difficult and rare it is to accomplish this, there have been more than 11,000 proposed amendments in our nation’s history.
As an aside, going back and reading the Constitution again, going through each of the amendments, reading court decisions and the debates that surrounded the amendments is a really wonderful refresher on our history. My buddy Dan is a high school history professor who actually designed a curriculum in this way—teaching American history through the lens of the amendments. It’s a really smart way to approach our history.
But I digress.
The second line of the Article strikes at the heart of the matter today. And that’s the “Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.” This is the Convention of States. So if two thirds of the now 50 states propose an amendment, it must be officially considered for inclusion in the Constitution. It gets tricky here and we’ll visit this more in a minute, but should an amendment be proposed by two thirds of the states, which is 34, then it must be adopted by three quarters of the state legislatures, which is 38.
If we examine this through a current lens such as the abortion issue, apart from Congress falling into the hands of the Republicans who might then propose a constitutional ban on abortions for example, there is another path entirely. And that’s directly through the states. A maneuver that bypasses Congress altogether.
There are several procedural questions that arise when contemplating this particular journey. Does it all have to happen at once? Meaning, do the states have to convene to propose an amendment, or series of amendments during a convention? Or can they ratify amendments one by one in state legislatures then call a convention to try and get three quarters of the states to jump on board?
In the latter scenario, which is the one being pursued by the way, if a state passes an amendment in 2022, then attempts to overturn it after a convention has been called, is the original one invalidated? Assuming this kind of scenario, the validity of a convention—regardless of what was proposed or ultimately ratified—would undoubtedly face a challenge at the Supreme Court at some juncture. And given the generational composition of what can only be called the Trump Supreme Court today, do you trust the outcome? Considering the originalism by convenience leanings of the Court, I would have to cast serious doubt on this.
It should be mentioned, that in the final passage, the framers specifically allude to parts of the Constitution that cannot be touched. The second is easier to unpack. No amendment can alter the calculation of only two senators per state. So, okay. But the first is a reminder of how deeply slavery is enshrined in our founding and history. “No Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article.”
Here are those passages. Section 9, clause one:
“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”
Here’s Section 9, clause four:
“No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”
So let’s take the first clause. This essentially protects the slave trade until 1808, though it allows for a tax on individual enslaved people not to exceed $10. The slave trade was outlawed in 1800 by an act of Congress and was very much on the minds of the framers. Protecting it allowed for unfettered importation of slaves for a few more years and, of course, did nothing to offer rights to those who were enslaved at the time nor their offspring. This was meant to appease the southern states but set some sort of actuarial timeline, in theory, for the end of the practice.
The framers knew that there would be no Constitution, no republic, if it called for the abolishment of slavery. So even in contemplating future revisions to the Constitution, they put in a poison pill to ensure that by 1808 the import of humans for enslavement would be outlawed.
The fourth clause essentially prohibits direct taxation, which would ultimately be undone by Article 16 of the Constitution, though it maintained a prohibition on interstate taxation of commerce.
I went through the exclusions to illustrate that apart from importing humans for slavery, allowing states to tax one another and changing the number of senators apportioned to the states, an amendment proposed by 34 states and ratified by 38 would be enshrined in the Constitution. Basically demonstrating that anything and everything is on the table if you can allow yourself to imagine it. So now you know what the law says, what it excludes and what is possible.
Chapter Two: What’s the end game here?
So there’s understanding the provision in the Constitution that allows for states to offer and ratify amendments. Then there’s understanding who exactly wants to pursue this avenue and why. The implication behind a Convention of States is a no confidence vote in the federal government. That the federal government is either too big or too powerful and no longer represents the will of the people. So the framers, Madison in particular, gave the states a way to check this power and put whatever the issue is back in the box.
So until now, most of the emphasis within the movement has revolved around government spending. Although we’ll speak the quiet parts out loud in a bit, let’s just focus on that.
As for the “who” is behind this, there is a real movement. There’s an organization that is well funded and has been for decades pushing for a Convention of States focused on limiting the spending authority of the federal government. The number one promoter of this movement is conservative commentator Mark Levin, an extremely popular figure with reach through syndicated radio, television appearances and a podcast with more than 2 million monthly downloads. He might not be on your radar or you may only have a peripheral awareness of Levin, but he’s no slouch. Here he is in conversation with Mark Meckler (more on this asshole later) about the Convention of States just a couple months ago on his radio show:
“Rather than take the streets, rather than become ‘antifa’ or Black Lives Matter… we are following the Constitution. I don’t know why these guys and gals are so afraid. The Constitution empowers us. This language is in the Constitution. This language was adopted by the same people who adopted all the rest of it. And so when you hear these state senators, in this case South Dakota, saying I’m concerned about it, that means they’re not textualists. That means they’re not originalists. There’s nothing to be afraid of. Milton Friedman said this was really the only way to fix things. Even Dwight Eisenhower looked at it and said this was probably the only way to fix things. Everett Dirksen—many of you older people like me, you know who he is, he pointed to it. And as a matter of fact, James Madison pointed to it as a way to avoid what would become the Civil War. So this is a very important lever that we have and if we don’t use it we’re going to lose it.”
“I think, myself, there is only one way you can fundamentally remedy it. And that is political change in the form of Constitutional provisions which will set a limit to government spending.”
That’s right. The primary rationale used by conservative proponents of the Convention process is to restrain the federal government with a balanced budget amendment. By constitutionally forcing the government not to run deficits, conservatives would be able to achieve a whole host of reforms.
Using today’s figures, assuming an amendment like this actually came to fruition the government would have to cut $3 trillion in spending; the projected amount of the deficit. This year and every year going forward. So even if we optimistically said, “great, cut the military budget,” that would leave more than $2 trillion to cut.
The entire country would be forced into a do over. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. You name it. Everything would be slashed and burned in pursuit of a balanced budget and before you say, “that’s crazy, who would want that?” The answer is very, very clear. Conservatives do.
This is their backdoor concept to stripping away all spending that matters to our daily lives. Before we even open our imaginations to explore all of the social possibilities from an outright ban on abortion or contraception, codifying onerous voting laws that disenfranchise millions, or other horrific possibilities, recognize just how much of the United States at present would simply disappear overnight with a balanced budget amendment.
The madness of states actually ratifying something like this would seem absurd given that state aid for schools, budget gaps, healthcare, roads, etc. would all be cut as well. But apparently that doesn’t bother the Republican controlled legislatures of 19 states who have already passed legislation calling for a Convention of States.
While the likelihood of obtaining a two thirds majority is slim today and three quarters of states ratifying something so radical is even more slim, we can’t turn a blind eye to the fact that 19 fellow states—states which Unf*ckers all over already live in—have already seen fit to take the first step.
The Convention of States legislation has already passed both houses in Georgia, Alaska, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, Indiana, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arizona, North Dakota, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Utah, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Nebraska, West Virginia and South Carolina.
Chapter Three: Um, is this what the framers intended?
As I’ve said many times before, when it comes to interpreting the Constitution to interpret the intent of the founders, we don’t need to struggle. They literally left behind their study notes in the form of the Federalist Papers. So before we go through a mathematical exercise to determine what advocates of a Convention of States need in order to secure an actual compact, let’s hear from a couple of our founders to learn what they had to say about this process. There are only a handful of references to the amendment process in their papers but they’re indeed insightful.
The bulk of the writing was done by James Madison, which tracks because he was clearly the consequential author of the procedural and organizational aspects of the Constitution. This first passage is a reflection on the debate surrounding Federalism. Essentially, how much power should be maintained by a central authority versus the states. Most modern conservatives are federalists at heart, seeking to limit the authority of the federal government, which was as rich of a debate back then as it is now. Here’s Madison, from Federalist 39:
“If we try the Constitution by its last relation to the authority by which amendments are to be made, we find it neither wholly national nor wholly federal. Were it wholly national, the supreme and ultimate authority would reside in the majority of the people of the Union; and this authority would be competent at all times, like that of a majority of every national society to alter or abolish its established government. Were it wholly federal, on the other hand, the concurrence of each State in the Union would be essential to every alteration that would be binding on all. The mode provided by the plan of the convention is not founded on either of these principles… The proposed Constitution, therefore, even when tested by the rules laid down by its antagonists, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both.”
So in this passage, as in much of his writing, we see Madison working out the issue of state’s rights in real time. With respect to a Convention of States, he’s walking a fine line between nationalism and federalism and ensuring that the high bar of two thirds for proposing and three quarters for ratifying prevents absolute power to either interest. He further codifies this in Federalist 43 saying:
“To have required the unanimous ratification of the thirteen States would have subjected the essential interests of the whole to the caprice or corruption of a single member. It would have marked a want of foresight in the convention, which our own experience would have rendered inexcusable.”
So this is pretty self explanatory. Basically he’s preventing the tyranny of the minority by requiring a majority but stopping short of requiring unanimity.
All told, these are the procedural protections that inform the convention process, though it tells us little about what kind of propositions would rise to this level. On this Hamilton offers a little more insight, which we’ll get to in a minute, but Madison does remark further in Federalist 43 that, “the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected; whilst considerations of a common interest, and, above all, the remembrance of the endearing scenes which are past, and the anticipation of a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion, will, it is hoped, not urge in vain moderation on one side, and prudence on the other.”
It’s clear that Madison is pressing for cooler heads to prevail and that any amendments be, at their core, moral. That’s about as didactic as Madison gets by the way. Hamilton on the other hand, far more flowery and high minded in speaking to a Convention of States, begins the following sentiment in Federalist 85 by quoting David Hume:
“To balance a large state or society, whether monarchical or republican, on general laws, is a work of so great difficulty that no human genius, however comprehensive, is able, by the mere dint of reason and reflection, to effect it. The judgments of many must unite in the work; EXPERIENCE must guide their labor; TIME must bring it to perfection, and the FEELING of inconveniences must correct the mistakes which they inevitably fall into in their first trials and experiments.”
Then, Hamilton in his own words continues:
“These judicious reflections contain a lesson of moderation to all the sincere lovers of the Union, and ought to put them upon their guard against hazarding anarchy, civil war, a perpetual alienation of the States from each other, and perhaps the military despotism of a victorious demagogue, in the pursuit of what they are not likely to obtain, but from TIME and EXPERIENCE.”
Before we unpack that a little, just prior to his quoting Hume, he offers his own sentiment in Federalist 85, which is,
“For my own part, I acknowledge a thorough conviction that any amendments which may, upon mature consideration, be thought useful, will be applicable to the organization of the government.”
So what’s hanging over these guys is the issue of slavery. In so many ways the sentiments behind the procedural aspects of the Constitution were acknowledgments of America’s Achilles heel. And while it’s not for us to pursue today, there are so many scenarios contained within the procedural elements they established and the sentiments therein that speak to the tortured process of trying to create a nation with morals while protecting an institution as evil as slavery. Just fascinating shit.
For our purposes today, we have to examine not only the amendment process but the current push toward it. And by the way, no matter what you hear in the future about this issue, you’ve just read almost every single thing written about it as a matter of record from the founders. So anything else that surrounds this is conjecture, interpretation and entirely subjective.
To be as objective and clear as possible, I think it’s reasonable to extract the following two sentiments from Article V itself and the Federalist Papers passages that speak to it.
First, as Hamilton mentions, any amendment should relate to the organization of the government. In my mind that excludes moral clauses like abortion, prohibition, racial issues—essentially any of the hot button topics surrounding identity politics in this day and age.
Second, as we hear from Madison, it should be really hard to do and reflect the will of the majority.
So with that as our baseline, let’s look at the movement in front of us and do a little math.
Chapter Four: We might need more states.
In 2016 there was an actual fucking dry run of a Convention of States. Representatives from all over the country gathered in 2016 to test Article V and hold a theoretical convention. A couple of things. They did it, first, because there has never been an attempt to hold a convention so the organizing group behind it—a well funded group called the Convention of States Action—wanted to create the blueprint. Second, it was expensive to produce.
Before we look at the gains they have made, let’s look at who’s behind it.
For starters, their biggest endorsements come from a who’s who of terrible people. You heard from Mark Levin and Ben Shapiro before but other luminaries include Sean Hannity, Rand Paul, Sarah Palin, Ron Johnson and Charlie Kirk. More troublingly, considering this is about state’s rights, you have assholes like Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott whose states have already passed legislation to call a convention.
This movement literally has support from the worst people in the country. A reason in and of itself to be afraid. But what’s more troubling is what Abbott said. He knows what it takes to pass a Convention of States (COS) resolution because Texas was one of the 19 states that made it happen. So it’s math time. Time to really examine the balance of the nation and do our best Steve Kornacki to figure this all out.
To review the 19, we have Georgia, Alaska, Florida, Alabama, Tennessee, Indiana, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arizona, North Dakota, Texas, Missouri, Arkansas, Utah, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Nebraska, West Virginia and South Carolina.
In terms of the effort already underway, let’s look at the states in groupings. We have states that I’ll call “on the cusp.” These are states where legislation calling for a COS has already passed one chamber, has control of both state houses and the governors’ offices and an active Convention of States Action lobby. As of right now this group includes Iowa, South Dakota and New Hampshire.
That brings us to 22.
Then there’s a grouping of states that I’ll call “primed.” These are states where Republicans are in control and have an active lobby but no legislation has passed to date. Ohio and Wyoming have both chambers, the governor’s office and an active campaign. Pennsylvania, Michigan, Kansas and Kentucky have at least two positions of control and an active lobby. And Montana and Idaho have all three but no active lobby as of yet. But as primed states in Republican control, they’re in a position to be swayed. All in that’s another eight states.
That puts us at 30. Troubling, but still shy of the two thirds needed.
Now we have what I’ll call the “up for Grabs” states that blow with the wind. The question is whether there are four more to be found out of these five states.
In Minnesota you have a divided legislature with an inactive lobby but always a precarious red/blue dynamic. Same thing in Maryland. On the other hand, you have New Mexico, which already passed legislation in one house. Then you have Virginia and North Carolina, also precarious red/blue states that have divided houses but one that already passed the legislation. If you pick off Maryland, Virginia, New Mexico and North Carolina and add them to our primed states, you have enough to call a Convention.
But what about the faithfully blue states? After all, just calling a convention isn’t enough to actually amend the Constitution.
This is where hope lives. The blue wall that is:
New York, Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Illinois, Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Hawaii and Colorado. These reliably blue states with democratic chambers are a theoretical bulwark against the red tide that would be required to get a three quarter majority for ratification of any amendment. Or more plainly, that gets us to 38 states.
But let me ask you something…
How confident are you that all of these states will hold over the next decade? Colorado and Nevada were red states as recent as 2004. Delaware, New Jersey, Maine, Vermont and California went for George Bush Sr. Do you have a sense that the country is moving to the left at this moment? Or to the right?
If you want to examine this math yourself, we actually built a cool little color coded map on our website. Visit UNFTR.com/COS to see how we grouped the states.
Beyond the terrifying math, there’s also a question of procedure and how fair, or unfair, the process might be. Common Cause, which has strongly opposed the COS movement, rightly questions the particulars of a convention since it’s not specifically contemplated anywhere in the Constitution or even the Federalist Papers”
“It’s also unclear how delegates would be chosen. If the selections were made by today’s largely gerrymandered state legislatures, the convention would likely have a decidedly Republican bent, despite the fact that surveys show fewer Americans identify as Republicans than as Democrats. If delegate selection were based on population size, then larger states, where Democrats generally have an advantage, would produce a convention tilting toward the left.
“What if the state petitions are not identical? Would Congress still have to act? What if Congress was deadlocked and failed to act on those petitions; could a court step in and order the convention convened? If Congress acted, how would the convention work? Who would choose the delegates and decide how many each state could send? Would the convention’s work be limited to one subject – like the balanced budget plan or campaign finance reform – or might delegates undertake a wholesale rewrite of the national charter? And if the convention agreed on one or more amendments, would Congress be required to forward them to the states for ratification?”
There are more questions than answers but one has to imagine that the questions would be answered not by the best political process but by the biggest wallet. Believe it or not, there’s big money behind this movement already.
The Convention of States Action organization raises almost $7 million dollars a year from dark money sources. While the website doesn’t list employees, the company LinkedIn claims 144 people who work there. Though I suspect a bunch are volunteers. Anyway, this entirely white team of staff members and volunteers with so many fucking flags and eagles and shit jammed into their profile pictures, are busy doing the bidding of some pretty shitty donors.
Mark Meckler, the head of the organization and co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, is a Gold Circle member of the Council for National Policy, a secret right wing Christian nationalist organization. And while Convention of States Action itself doesn’t disclose funders, SourceWatch uncovered a few that tie back to the Mercer Family, Koch brothers and groups funded by Leonard Leo, the dude who hand selected justices Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.
Meckler, the face of the organization, has been quoted as saying, “Black Lives Matter as an organization is evil. It is anti-American, it is anti-nuclear family; they say this on their website. It is pro-transgender- it’s a mental illness by the way, you can’t be pro-mental illness it’s a terrible thing.”
So the group behind this push is inspired by Milton Friedman, in bed with right wing Christian nationalists, funded by the Koch Brothers and the Mercers, promoted by Mark Levin, Sean Hannity and Ben Shapiro and run by one of the biggest fucking assholes in America.
Do I have your attention yet?
Chapter Five: Bring it home, Max.
The Convention of States was a big deal leading up to Trump’s election and had some momentum during his first year. But it appeared to lose some momentum, likely because it became apparent that the court was going to belong to the Trump wing of the party. But I want to draw your attention to the fact that four states—Wisconsin, Nebraska, West Virginia and South Carolina—all passed legislation in 2022. This is game on, Unf*ckers. They’re going for it.
When you look at the money involved and understand that the balanced budget amendment goes all the way back to uncle fucknugget (#FMF), it should be crystal clear that they’re in this for the long haul. This effort isn’t going anywhere. These motherfuckers are more patient than a Buddhist monk.
The thought of this happening just seems so remote. Science fiction. Too Orwellian, right? But think about the timeline from Friedman on. Think about everything we covered from the Powell Memo, Mont Pelerin and James Buchanan right through until today.
Citizens and pundits alike were stunned by the leak of the draft decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Stunned! The reaction to Trump’s election was one of astonishment. The upending of norms. Can he really do that? On January 6th last year we watched a group of domestic terrorists storm the fucking Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the election. And we couldn’t believe it. But this shit doesn’t happen overnight. And nothing is off limits anymore, especially if you’ve put the time and energy into planning it. Nothing. And with the Convention of States we’re not even talking about something that could take us by surprise. They’re literally telling us what they plan on doing.
Since the 70s it’s been move to the right, hold. Move to the right, hold.
You cannot underestimate the power of their salesmanship on these issues. By cloaking a Convention of States in a balanced budget process and seeking to limit the overreach of the federal government to place more power in the hands of the states to rule the majority, they’re offering the American people a Trojan Horse. And what’s inside? Please test the limits of your imagination. A federal ban on abortion? Overturning Griswold by implementing a federal ban on contraception? Immigration?
It would unleash all of the nativist tendencies of the right and give them a procedural mechanism to overturn the will of the people and rewrite the Constitution. They can’t take away amendments, in theory, but they can add them. So the sky’s the limit. Anything not already specifically enumerated in the Constitution would be on the table.
Think of all the puzzle pieces they’ve had to put together over the years. We’ve covered so many of them before. Taken independently they’re terrifying enough. Put them all together and the picture gets even more terrifyingly clear.
Partisan redistricting. Ensure the minority parties have the ability to retain the majority in state legislatures regardless of popular vote counts. Both major parties have engaged in this but the Republicans got an earlier jump and have been more successful. How successful have these efforts been? Let’s look at the balance of power in the states.
As of March of 2022:
Democrats control 18 state senate chambers and republicans control 32.
Democrats control 18 house chambers and republicans control 29 and one chamber is split.
We have 22 democratic governors and 28 republican governors.
How about voter suppression? In 2013 the Supreme Court, then with a smaller conservative majority than now, struck down a crucial formula contained within the Voting Rights Act that effectively shifted the burden of proof from the state to the voter to determine legitimacy. It set off a spate of voter disenfranchisement laws, most of which have been upheld at the state level that disproportionately target voters of color.
Or Citizens United? Allowing unlimited sums of dark money to influence our politics. Is there any part of you that believes that were a Convention of States to be called, that the proposed amendment or amendments would be written by anyone other than wealthy dark money donors? I can answer that for you already, because the proposed amendments at the dry run convention were written by dark money darling, ALEC—The American Legislative Exchange Council.
So much of what we cover can leave you in a state of paralysis, and I get it. But we have to understand what’s at stake and how they’re coming for us to really do anything about it. As far as what can be done about it, there are a few things. Let’s say they get enough states to actually call for a Convention. Well, guess what?
So can we.
That’s right. We could take this approach. Go ahead. Call your convention. Because we’re going to show up with New York, New Jersey, California, Vermont and 35 other states in our pocket and make abortion legal in the Constitution.
It’s an interesting scenario. But a little too risky for my taste. Another way to skin this cat is to stack the deck in our favor.
Statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington D.C.
Again. Interesting but a lot of work. Plus, we should probably ask the Puerto Ricans if they even want to be part of this fucking shit show.
I guess that leaves only one option. Vote. Just fucking vote. Locally.
Everyone talks about national elections. Elections have consequences. Midterm turnout matters! Every vote counts. Well, while they’re distracting you with the big shiny objects on the national scene, they’re rubbing some shine right under our noses and in our backyards. Every state and local election you blow off, they’re showing up.
Can’t name your assemblyperson or state senator? That’s a problem. These bottom of the fucking barrel podunk political asshats, chosen by some mouth breathing chairperson because they stuffed enough envelopes for the local library board election, are the ones that might wind up fucking up the whole shebang for the rest of us because they’re too stupid to understand the bigger game.
Picture, if you will, the stupidest local state republican official you know and then imagine them taking part in a real life constitutional amendment process to make sure the federal government balances the budget. I can see it. Can you?
Make Puerto Rico a state…if they’ll have us.
Don’t sleep on local elections.
Mark Meckler is an evil motherfucker.
Here endeth the lesson.
SourceWatch: Convention of States Action
Planned Parenthood: Griswold v. Connecticut
UNFTR Episode Resources
Thank you as always to our “Unf*cking Insane” show sponsors:
WJeremyD, TamJam, Sam C., Ryan F., Rob Nasby, Prof G, Nic G + Cassie LMM, Nathan S(irst), Nathan S(econd), Nathan E., Michelle H., Mathew, Krin G., Jennifer S., GWookie of Ohio, Eric Wagner 101, David MJ, Corey S., Cindy S., Asshole, Asim A. and Aisokh.
Additionally, today’s essay is sponsored by “Unf*cking Pro,” Unf*cking Phil.
To learn more about UNFTR Membership Levels and how to sponsor the show, visit buymeacoffee.com/unftr.