Press "Enter" to skip to content

National insecurity

December 15, 2025

Donald Trump shocked America’s allies when he made a late night release of his National Security Strategy (NSS) on December 4. The document contends that the international order the United States established with its allies following World War II has undermined “the character of our nation” and must be replaced by a system focusing on the Western Hemisphere. The concept is to dominate our neighbors to the North and South with what the NSS calls “commercial diplomacy.” That is, the “U.S. Government will identify strategic acquisition and investment opportunities for American companies in the region and present these opportunities for assessment by every U.S. Government financing program.” This is mercantilism in its rawest form.

On the other hand, the NSS suggests that America should distance itself from our European allies who have stood with us and against Russian aggression since Western Europe rose from the ashes of war. Pentagon officials told European diplomats in Washington last week that Trump wants Europe to take over the majority of NATO's conventional defense capabilities, from intelligence to missiles, by 2027. That would be disastrous for America’s national security interests. Our extraordinary control of NATO and cooperation with its partner nations have provided bases to project American power and greatly facilitated our rise as an unrivalled military and economic power.

Trump's NSS essentially dismisses Russia as a threat to the United States, which is a dramatic change from previous versions of the document. The strategy complains that “European officials…hold unrealistic expectations” for an end to Russia's war against Ukraine. If those expectations are unrealistic, it is only because Trump has essentially cut off critical military assistance to Ukraine, while making nice to Vladimir Putin. His NSS gives voice to Putin’s demands for ending “the perception, and preventing the reality, of NATO as a perpetually expanding alliance.” There is much in the strategy to warm the heart of Trump’s favorite dictator. A fair reading of the document indicates a plan to dump Europe, NATO and Ukraine.

The NSS also answers the question of why the U.S. has positioned such a formidable military force off the shores of Venezuela. Trump’s claim that it was to interdict drugs never rang true. Trump has shown how much he cares about fighting narco-terrorists by pardoning a creep who was convicted in 2024 for trafficking over 400 tons of cocaine into the United States. Former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez once boasted that he would “stuff the drugs up the gringos’ noses” and he certainly stuffed a mighty tonnage up those U.S. nostrils. Trump falsely claimed the prosecution was unfair but failed to point out that the investigation of Hernandez began during Trump’s first term as president. Nor did he mention that his sycophantic lawyer, Emil Bove III, who worked as a federal prosecutor from 2015 to 2021, had played a major role in the investigation that led to Hernandez’ conviction. Trump recently appointed Bove to an important federal court position. And, he has granted clemency to about 100 other people accused of drug-related crimes during his time in office.

Trump’s purported drug war with Venezuela was merely a pretense to insert U.S. military power into southern waters to carry out the Western Hemisphere strategy set out in the NSS. America has no strategic interest in waging hostilities against Venezuela or any other of the Latin American countries. We do have important strategic interests in placing American military power in close proximity to the real and dangerous threats posed by our major adversaries, Russia and China. Those powerful and menacing nations apparently get a free pass under the NSS. It makes absolutely no sense to adopt a national security strategy that diverts the nation’s attention from the real and present dangers facing our country.

 

Variety and resilience

Variety and resilience

December 14, 2025

In central downtown, near the multi-story federal building, a block or so from several eating and drinking establishments and retailers, and the library and the animal rescue service and the busy and multi-use senior center, in the midst of these things, you’re invited to slow your pace.

There, below ample leafy trees and just off busy commercial streets you can listen on the sidewalk to the broadcast of the radio station housed there, to its musical and local news and sports offerings. While reading, if you like, the local newspaper and sipping a fresh coffee drink.

Where, on the right day this year, you might have seen a No Kings demonstration on the main street.

Nope, this isn’t Portland or Salem or Eugene.

Welcome to Oregon’s most remote rural center, which most Oregonians probably never have visited: Lakeview.

I spent time there recently on a winding trip around the huge section of  Oregon south of Interstate 84 and east of U.S. 97. This area amounts to close to half of the state’s land area but has no metro areas or even any micropolitan areas, and not many people.

The landscape and wildlife are more varied than you might expect. Much of the terrain is arid, desert-like, but it also has vast forested regions and some of Oregon’s larger lakes.

Many western Oregonians may see the society here in stereotypes: Tiny and decaying towns, barely any economy, with only tiny communities located far from each other and further from bigger cities. Agriculture as the sole, limited, and maybe declining economic base. Vast open lands mostly run by the federal government. Politically deep red, a population identifying itself as Greater Idaho. And, well, is there a risk some of them might fall below an irreducible minimum of people and economy and simply vanish?

Spend some time in these places, and you’ll find more complexity and depth, and a brighter picture, than you might expect.

The Census counted 2,418 people in Lakeview five years ago. Most western Oregon cities that size would have little commerce and few services; but many of them are located near larger regional centers or metro areas. Lakeview, seat of the vast but lightly populated Lake County, is about two hours from the nearest larger Oregon community (Klamath Falls).

Lake County more than matches the political stereotype. In 2024 it voted solidly Republican: 81.2% for Donald Trump for president, the highest percentage any presidential candidate has received in its history.

But in smaller population areas even political minorities can stand out and have impact. A local anti-Trump No Kings group rallied here this fall (as did a group in the similarly-sized city of Burns, a couple of hours away), drawn in part no doubt from the 681 people here who in 2024 voted for Kamala Harris. (Consider the determination it would take to do that.)

Similarly, local commerce and communications in these far-flung places often get strong local support and interact more closely with the community than they do in more populated areas. There’s a lively radio community with not only downtown station KORV-FM (“kick off your boots and stay awhile”) but others as well. The broadband internet server TNET has an office next door to the station. Lakeview has a large Safeway supermarket and a significant array of other retailers. Public transit? It has a bus service of sorts connecting to other southern Oregon communities.

Of course, maintaining all this requires keeping enough money flowing into the area. Agriculture — which means ranching in many places — remains important. But you can also find an array of unexpected small businesses.

Government investment and employment provide a key additional piece of the foundation. The good wages by federal agencies account for a big piece of the economy throughout this area, and county governments in places like Burns, Vale, Lakeview and Fossil also bolster the area.

For all the wide open spaces, and the long distances — an hour or more is not unusual traveling time from community to community — the number of communities (Burns, John Day, Vale, Heppner, Condon, Fossil, Prairie City, Canyon City, Seneca, Bly, Paisley and more) do add up.

Many of these communities — John Day, Burns, Lakeview among them — seem much more economically vibrant than towns of their size and location would seem to allow.

They have specific cultures and traditions. In John Day, you will periodically hear what sounds like an air-raid siren, often setting off dog howling in the process. The city has a volunteer fire department, and the siren alerts everyone that firefighters are on the move.

There are challenges. Burns, which has a prosperous commercial area on the west side of town toward Hines, has too many shuttered storefronts on its dignified downtown section. Much of Burns flooded this year, but by fall most signs of it had disappeared from sight. You get the sense of struggles to develop more commercial activity, and attract new residents.

But they have maintained a sense of culture and place, and in standing up to many recent economic and social trends, they have proven themselves resilient.

If you’re looking for a part of Oregon you may not have visited lately, if ever, this wide open country is worth your consideration. And for consideration too of the lessons it can teach.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

The Idaho catch

The Idaho catch

December 12, 2025

The national off-year election calendar has run its course for 2025, to remarkable consistency.

Will any echoes from it show in the 2026 elections in Idaho? Maybe  few.

Nationally, over the last 10 months or so, Democrats have done well. They have flipped - depending on how you count - around 25 to 30 offices around the country, from governor of Virginia to a rural legislative district in Georgia to the mayoralty of Miami, often in places where Republicans have long won easily. Even where they fell short, as recently in a Tennessee congressional district, they improved massively on their 2024 numbers. While these mostly special elections do tend to draw smaller electorates and aren’t exactly the same as general elections, some drew large numbers of voters.

Consistently, Democrats are running about 13 to 15 points ahead of 2024. These elections can involve special circumstances and we’re still most of a year before the 2026 mid-term. But these results may be a national harbinger.

Might some of this translate to changes in Idaho politics next year?

You can never be entirely sure. But the short answer may be: A little, but for the moment don’t expect too much.

A 13-to-15 point gain for Democrats could matter a lot wherever Democrats have been losing by that percentage or less. That applies to quite a few national congressional and other districts.

But in Idaho, the numbers are more daunting. Idaho could look a little like the Tennessee 7th congressional district election from earlier this month (which drew a large electorate), where a standard Republican 22% advantage fell to 9%, a big decline but not enough to flip the seat.

In 2024, these were the winning margins for Republicans toward the top of the ballot: Donald Trump for president, 46.5%; Representative Russ Fulcher, 38.5%; Representative Mike Simpson, 29.6%. A shift of around 14% to a Democrat would cut into those leads but wouldn’t come close to erasing them.

What about the legislature? A review of those races provide just limited areas where the recent Democratic shift might matter. In 2024, I count 46 Republican legislative candidates who were opposed by Democrats (not just independents or third parties) who received at least 70% of the general election vote - meaning their winning margins were at least 40%. A shift away from them of 14% or so would barely be noticed. Some change much larger than that would be needed to unseat them.

Are there any seats whose results from last year where a Democratic shift could plausibly make a difference? Yes, an even 10 of them.

Two of those already are held by Democrats. Senator Rod Taylor of District 26, which includes Jerome and Blaine counties, won last time by a thin plurality, only about 1.5% more than the Republican. He surely is a top Republican target for 2026, and a relatively favorable Democratic environment could make the difference in 2026. In west Boise’s District 15, Representative Steve Berch was held to a one-point margin last time, and also could use all the bigger-picture help he could get.

But there also are eight Republican legislators whose races last time were just close enough to put them at risk if the Democratic national trend holds and extends to Idaho. Two legislators from Moscow-based District 6 won by only modest percentages last time, as did both of the Republicans in hotly-contested District 15. In District 26 (Blaine and Jerome) that tight Senate race wasn’t an aberration, as both Republican House members there also had close calls. It was the same story in Pocatello-based District 29, where Democrat James Ruchti wasn’t opposed last time (but likely will be next year), but both House members were held to modest wins.

Of course, a year from now the picture could look different. Republicans might be in a better position than today.

Or worse.

 

Winning where it counts

Winning where it counts

December 10, 2025

Andrew Rogers is 33 years old, lives in an apartment in Sandpoint, works at the local Safeway store and is self-sufficient.

It’s a “normal” lifestyle by any measure – something that didn’t appear to be possible 12 years ago. Autism didn’t hold back Andrew and his life changed for the better when Panhandle Special Needs Inc. entered the picture.

As he explains, “It opened doors for things I couldn’t do. I learned how to manage a budget, shop, do housecleaning, how to cook different foods and how to do laundry.”

Megan Albertson, administrative assistant for Panhandle Special Needs, saw a much different person in 2013.

“When he first came to us, he struggled with anxiety, depression, low self-esteem and a fear of anything new. And that was in addition to his diagnosis of mild intellectual disability with a development age of about eight and a half years,” she said. “His parents were convinced he faced significant barriers to independence and would never be able to live on his own.”

Living on his own didn’t happen overnight – the special needs staff spent many hours, and Andrew spent a lot of classroom time, learning the basics of independent living. In 2017, he moved into his own apartment – beaming with pride – and by 2018 his goal was met.

“He proved to himself, his parents and our staff that he was fully capable of independent living, just like we knew he could,” says Albertson. “We continued to challenge him with more advanced skills – things like portion control, problem solving and cooking complex meals.”

Andrew’s parents moved to Arizona three years ago, and Andrew went with them for a brief period. He decided that he wanted to move back to Sandpoint.

“I couldn’t get into an apartment – it was literally impossible,” he said. “I couldn’t get a job and they didn’t have services for people with my level of disability. Here, they have everything.”

Look at him now, says Albertson. “He’s here, living 100 percent independently.”

Andrew’s is not the only success story within Panhandle Special Needs. The Sandpoint-based nonprofit organization has been around for 50 years, serving people with disabilities in Bonner and Boundary counties. Trinity Nicholson, the executive director for 25 years, has on file a long list of testimonials from participants, caregivers and even staff members who sing praises about the work environment. It all speaks well of the value of Panhandle Special Needs and Nicholson’s leadership.

PSNI serves about 200 clients a year, offering a wide range of services and employment opportunities. There are not a lot of places like this. Board members are unpaid and funding predominantly comes from Medicaid, with in-house programs providing some revenue. As with nonprofits in general, private donations play a big part in the service’s viability.

“We see people moving here from other states to get services,” Nicholson says. “We serve families, not just individuals. As demands grow, we don’t want to be just OK in doing a lot of things. We want to be really good at providing services.”

In the process, Bonner and Boundary counties are a better place to live. Over decades, Panhandle Special Needs has served scores of disabled people and, in many cases, sparing families from severe financial hardships. Andrew Rogers has an idea how his life would be without this service.

“I’d be living with my parents for the rest of my life.”

Chuck Malloy, a long-time Idaho journalist and columnist, is a writer with the Nonprofit Center, a program of The Idaho Community Foundation. He may be reached at ctmalloy@outlook.com

 

Punishing all

December 8, 2025

Here we go again, Donald Trump and the MAGA media are taking it out on all Afghan immigrants for the heinous shooting of two West Virginia National Guard members in Washington, D.C. Call it racism, collective punishment, whatever, it is anti-American to blame all members of a nationality, ethnic group or religion for the act of one individual.

There is no excuse for Rahmanullah Lakanwal’s unprovoked shooting of the Guard members and he should answer for his crimes to the fullest extent of the law. Neither is there any excuse for Trump’s vilification of immigrants from Afghanistan, claiming them to be dangerous people who were let into the U.S. without any vetting. That is simply untrue. Rigorous vetting has taken place for all refugees admitted to the U.S. in recent years, including those from Afghanistan. Procedures for admission of individuals who assisted and protected American troops in Afghanistan were even more intense.

Lakanwal was a member of a CIA “Zero Unit” sometimes called a death squad and would not have been admitted without close examination of his suitability. Of more interest is how Lakanwal acted after he, his wife and five young sons arrived in the U.S. in 2021. His behavior was apparently unremarkable until March of 2023 when his life seemed to unravel, becoming severely depressed, isolated and nonfunctional. Having seen similar symptoms in some of my Vietnam brethren who were involved in heavy combat, mental intervention would have been strongly recommended. It is unclear what resources may have been available to him. This would not excuse his criminal acts, but intervention might have helped to avert them.

While Trump has pointed the finger at everyone but himself for this tragic shooting, there is blame to go around. Trump granted asylum to the shooter in April of this year, a year after he began exhibiting troubling mental concerns. And a federal court ruled six days before the shooting that Trump unlawfully ordered the Guard units to Washington.

That needlessly exposed the Guard members to risk.

Trump used the horrific shooting of Specialist Sarah Beckstrom and Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe to tee off on all Afghan immigrants, as well as those from 18 other countries. In a Thanksgiving posting on Truth Social, he vowed to “permanently pause migration from all Third World Countries” and end all federal benefits and subsidies for "non-citizens", adding he would "denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility" and deport any foreign national deemed a public charge, security risk, or "non-compatible with Western civilization." If grandpa posted this kind of screed, we’d send him to a home.

The 19 countries targeted were identified in a proclamation issued by Trump in June. They are all poor countries with non-white populations. Although Trump characterizes them as being potentially harmful to “Americans or our national interests,” none of them are in a position to pose a credible threat to the United States. Of interest is the fact that several nations not on the list do have substantial lucrative business relationships with the Trump family and have been at odds with America’s national interests.

It should not be forgotten that 15 of the 9-11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud gave the order to dismember a Washington Post reporter. Trump has agreed to sell sophisticated F-35 fighter jets to the Saudis so they will now have their own aircraft.

Neither is Qatar on the suspect list, even though the country was a supporter of the Taliban during our fight against them in Afghanistan. Qatar funneled billions of dollars to Hamas, funding its attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. And, we can’t forget that their leader generously bestowed upon Trump a $400 million Boeing “flying palace’ that will cost taxpayers up to $1 billion to retrofit. In return, the Qataris will soon be flying fighter jets in and out of Mountain Home Air Force Base.

Experience in Idaho shows that Trump’s scaremongering about refugees is pure demagoguery. Idaho has one of the best-regarded refugee programs in the United States. I’ve met wonderful folks from Afghanistan, Iran, Somalia, the Congo, Laos, Iraq, Myanmar and several other of the countries on Trump’s suspect list. They are honest, humble, ambitious and patriotic additions to their Treasure and Magic Valley communities.

Unfortunately, Trump has reduced America’s refugee program to the lowest level ever–only 7,500 entries are expected this year. They will all be white South Africans.

During his first term, Trump devastated Idaho’s refugee program. After rebuilding it over the last four years, it will be devastated again. We all shall be the poorer for it.

 

Economic confusion

Economic confusion

December 7, 2025

In coming weeks, Oregon legislators will begin to consider what adjustments should be made to the state’s two-year budget and revenue picture. Much of the attention has gone to transportation funding, and the likely ballot issue which may alter it. But the economic and funding issues lurking in the coming year are broader.

Legislators will not find coping with the full range of what comes next an easy task.

The condition of Oregon’s economy right now isn’t easy even to describe, much less predict. Some of the usual sources of information aren’t as reliably available as usual. Much federal economic data was halted earlier this year due to some agency cutbacks and the recent government shutdown. (Some resumptions of data flow are expected soon.)

The Oregon Economic Forecast released Nov. 19 offers a heavily nuanced but partially optimistic take, suggesting the state of the economy isn’t as bad as it might have been.

“Despite a stall in net job creation in the first half of the year, aggregate income generation has proven resilient, which is reflected in both personal and corporate income tax collections,” the report reads. “This is an important real-time signal suggesting the economy is not in recession at present. It is also a reflection of persistent and elevated inflation, which lifts nominal activity and in turn tax revenues.”

The report specifically says that the general fund has registered an increase in projected revenue of $309.5 million, the bulk of which ($266.9 million) is projected to come from corporate income taxes.

Despite that, the report also said, “The projected ending balance as of June 30, 2027 is a negative $63.1 million.” Many areas are stable or “softening,” including the cannabis sales which had expanded rapidly for several years after legalization but more recently has weakened.

That lopsided corporate contribution also means income for almost everyone else has been stagnant or down.

The most recent unemployment statistics, from August (another example of the data gap at work), put the Oregon jobless rate at 5%, eighth-highest among the states and District of Columbia.

The D.C. jobless rate was the highest in the nation, accounted for in large part by federal government job cuts. In Oregon too, federal job cuts were among the largest areas of job reductions, even while state government job additions roughly offset that.

But the Oregon Employment Department also said that construction and manufacturing saw job losses in the last year even larger than those for the federal government — this at a time of relatively large construction in tech industry and residential projects.

The American economy has been described often this year as split between the artificial intelligence (AI) sector, and businesses servicing it, and everything else. Nearly all of the increase this year in the national stock market, and most of the national economic growth, has resulted from the massive trillion-dollar-level investment and spending related to AI. The “magnificent seven” megacorporations — Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Tesla, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, and NVIDIA — which account for the bulk of stock market advances are heavily involved in AI.

Oregon, through its strong position in housing the data centers on which AI development relies, logically would be a beneficiary of some of this economic growth. To a limited degree it seems to be.

A data center industry report from May noted that “eastern Oregon has emerged as a strategic haven for hyperscale development. From its abundant green power and favorable climate to political support and low costs, this under-the-radar region is shaping up to be the next great hyperscale frontier.”

But the story is mixed. Massive data center growth in places such as Boardman and Hillsboro so far mainly has resulted in one-and-out construction work, with eventual employment likely to be small-scale. (Construction, remember, has been shedding jobs in Oregon despite all the data center construction.) Tax dollars (in line with the new state economics report) are likely to see some gains, but the centers are unlikely to transform local economies.

And the data centers also have generated some problems — boosts in electric power costs and water quality issues among them — which have negative economic effects. Some of those negative effects could create state issues which may lead to calls for state program work and state spending.

And, of course, all this doesn’t even factor in the already-hot issue of transportation funding, which seems likely to be upended by a new proposed ballot issue.

Unpredictability isn’t something often measured by economists. But economics watcher John Tapogna recently had this to say about the coming environment: “Many of Oregon’s systems—our schools, regulations, land use rules and permitting processes — were built for a different time, to solve yesterday’s problems,” he said. “But the future has never looked less like the past than it does right now.”

Managing these many new and conflicting economic pieces will represent a huge challenge for the short legislative session upcoming.

This column originally appeared in the Oregon Capital Chronicle.

 

Stressers in the outlands

Stressers in the outlands

December 5, 2025

The usual rule-of-thumb cutoff point for when you’re paying more than you probably can afford for rent or mortgage is about 30% of your income.

In 2003, nine counties - six of those urban or urban-adjacent - had a high percentage of renters, 35% and up, who were in that financially-stressed category. Ada, Kootenai and Bonneville were unsurprising leaders of that group. Gem County, increasingly a bedroom area for Ada, was included too.

In 2023, those stressed renters amounted to 35% or more in not just nine, but in 37 counties, as the situation spread through the metro areas to places like Custer, Caribou and Benewah counties. When it comes to Idaho housing, rural doesn't necessarily equate to cheap.

That was just one of the rural stress indicators suggested in a useful new report, “Rural Profile of Idaho,” produced in November by the state Department of Labor. Besides the specific data points, it provides approaches to thinking about rural Idaho in a more nuanced way than many past studies have done.

For example: Many people tend to divide Idaho’s counties (and those in other states) into urban or rural. But anyone who travels much knows that’s simplistic, and this report comes up with four shades instead. Besides urban (including, for Idaho purposes, any county which has a city of 20,000 people or more), there’s “commuting” (where a large portion of the population commutes to or from an urban county), rural center (farther away but with a city of 7,500 to 20,000 people) and “open country” (away from urban places and no city of as many as 7,500 people).

In 2023, that gave Idaho nine urban counties (same as in 2003), eight commuting counties (compared to six earlier), eight rural center counties (compared to five earlier) and 22 open country counties (compared to 21). The shifts are significant.

So is this: “Idaho’s nine urban counties accounted for 72% of statewide population in 2023, up four percentage points from 68% in 2003. All three rural classifications saw their share of total population decline between one and two percentage points each from 2003 to 2023. Open country rural counties had the largest decline as their share of total population decreased by two percentage points from nearly 12% to under 10%.”

And there’s the point that the expansion of urban influence into the commuter counties has been growing: “As an increasing number of people migrated into bedroom communities in rural counties but were employed in urban counties, three of the counties classified as rural center in 2003 changed to commuting counties by 2023.”

While only a small number of Idaho counties tend to lose population by year or decade, the relative decline in overall state impact is clear and growing. (Wait till the next legislative reapportionment comes around and the open country counties lose even more representation compared to what they had 30 or 50 years ago.)

The demographics of the different types of counties are changing, too.

Urban and commuter counties are disproportionately picking up the from-out-of-state newcomers. And open country counties are aging - their average age increasing - and adding Latino populations at a higher rate, owing to agricultural-related employment. (That latter trend could be softening this year.) Growing service industries are becoming increasingly urban, and manufacturing and industrial economies are becoming more rural. The long-standing image of Idaho rural areas as places where there were few minority populations, an image not really accurate for quite a while, may become more unavoidably untrue in years to come. And that in turn could affect the nature of the people who immigrate to the state in times to come.

It’s not just that the population balance between “urban” and “rural” parts of Idaho is changing (with the shift being in the direction of urban and commuter). It’s also that urban and rural areas each are starting to look different, take on different characteristics and different kinds of populations. Those stats about housing costs are just one example of how that is happening.

Looked at long term, those changes could have a significant effect on Idaho politics as well as the basic character of the state.

 

The election process

December 2, 2025

Let’s take another look at the process for the election of the President.

Although we have been clamoring for years that we should do away with the electoral college and make the election by popular vote, recent events may indicate that this might be all wrong. Perhaps it would be better to revisit the indirect method for selection of President originally established in the Constitution, modernize it some, and invest it with even more protection in the future.

Our forefathers understood the weakness of a general election. Under the Constitution as originally written, only members of Congress within local districts were selected by direct vote. All of the other offices mentioned int the Constitution – being members of the Supreme Court, Senators, and the office of President -- were all to be selected by methods other that direct election.  Members of the Supreme Court were then and still are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Senators were to be selected by the separate state legislators. This practice was not changed until the 17th Amendment was finally ratified in 1913. Our President was to be selected by an independent electoral college, with the process of selecting members of the college left to the individual states. This is a process we have tinkered with through the years until it bears little resemblance to the method contemplated by the Constitution.

There is no discussion in the Constitution of how the members of the electoral college were to be selected.  It appears that the drafters of the Constitution expected that each state would utilize its own process for the selection of its delegates. Some states might use their legislature for the process while others might rely upon direct appointments by governors. Other methods were possible. It appears obvious that in the minds of the original drafters of the Constitution, there was no place for the general public to participate in the process of selecting the national leader.

The process has been changed somewhat, recognizing the vote of the general election as the process for selection of electors. But the core of the electoral college process remains, with its vote being essential to the election of the President.

Now, he process consists of a long primary season conducted state by state throughout the country, major conventions by both parties to pull the state actions together, and a national campaign of the finalists leading up to a national election in November every four years.  Considering the campaigning  in all the state primaries, the process may take over two years to complete.

But the national election is not the actual selection. In December of the election year, after the results of the general election have become final, delegates to the electoral college submit their ballots for the office of Presidential. It is their ballots that create the final, binding result in the election of President. It is essential to be aware that the general election only controls the selection of delegates to the electoral college. It is the vote of the electoral college that actually constitutes the vote for the office of president.

In 32 of the states, the electors are obligated by state law to vote for the candidate selected by the general vote. In other states the candidates for elector have indicated they intend to support if selected, but they are not bound by federal law to follow through if selected.

In 2020, the Supreme Court released Chiafalo v Washington, 591 U.S. 578 (1920), a decision resolving a procedural conflict in circuit court decisions on proceedings by the electoral college. In that case, the question of whether delegates were obligated under federal law to vote for the candidate identified in the election had been resolved differently in two districts, resulting in the Supreme Court decision to resolve the issue.

The majority opinion held that the Constitution does not impose any restriction on how the electoral college delegates are to vote. In Colorado, delegate electors were fined $1,000 if they voted for a different individual other than the candidate they had been designated to support. While they were fined, their vote for the different candidate was allowed to stand. When the process was challenged in federal court, the Tenth Circuit affirmed this process.

In Washington, if an elector attempted to vote for a different candidate, they were disqualified, and an alternate who had posted the correct vote was substituted. When this process was challenged in court, the Ninth Circuit approved this procedure.

The Supreme Court deemed this to create a conflict between the districts and granted cert. In resolving the conflict, the court ruled that the Colorado procedure of keeping the errant electors and counting their wrong votes but imposing monetary fines for the violation was an acceptable remedy. It held that the Washington practice of disqualifying the errant electors was not proper. The importance here is that the ruling by the Supreme Court recognized the electoral college as a distinct, separate process, and concluded that it was this process – and not the general election -- that controlled the final decision.

Under current practice, the process has become enormously expensive and time-consuming and is taking years to successfully accomplish. This leads to an obvious conclusion that many individuals who might be well qualified abstain from running because of the difficulties, uncertainties, and expense of the candidate selection process.

Once the selection of candidates for each major party is accomplished, the final campaign for election to office, overwhelmingly centered on television, becomes entirely dictated by so-called campaign experts. Although there may be a number of individuals on the ballot, the reality is that the final race will be between the two major parties. Their candidates are prepped and presented by special consultants with every detail scripted and edited to meet the experts’ criteria for winning the race.

In fact, the elements and factors necessary to conduct a winning campaign have little if anything to do with the abilities necessary to administer the office once elected. The objective of the campaign is only to achieve votes at the general elections; there is no necessity to demonstrate actual, relevant experience or ability to perform the tasks that will be expected of the one elected to the office being sought.

Consider, for example, the so-called television debates expected in our current Presidential campaigns, and the importance that is attached to them. Under the rules, the participating candidate is not advised in advance of the questions that will be asked, may not refer to any notes or reference material, and may not seek assistance from any qualified advisor. The candidate’s ability to succeed under these rules has no bearing on what would ever be expected from actual service.

We should revise the entire process and return to the methods as originally set forth in the Constitution. Recognize the significance of the electoral college. Hold elections for the electors in each state at the very beginning of the campaign period, with reference to adherence to and support of party structure but before the specific candidates have been selected. After the electors are chosen, then proceed as necessary to select the candidates from each party. Then conduct a campaign as necessary to acquaint the electors with the actual qualifications of the candidates. This process should only take a matter of weeks if not days and would replace the period of up to two years that is now consumed in the presidential process. Then conduct an election involving only the electors from each state.

This would result in an election process that could be completed from start to finish within a few months instead of years at a fraction of the cost now incurred. When not faced with the monumental cost in terms of dollars and time committed, we might find that the quality of those willing and able to serve might be considerably improved. Of major importance, the small group of electors from each state could concentrate on the candidates’ actual experience and abilities to do the job rather than their abilities to get themselves elected. The candidate’s affinity for television appearances would be an interesting quality but not an overwhelming one, as it is now.

Our forefathers knew what they were doing when they designed the system in the first place. We finally got exactly what the founders were trying to prevent when we ignored their work and changed the rules to connect the process to a general election. There is no guarantee that the mess our country is now in could have been avoided in all instances, but there is good reason to believe that the candidacy of the current office holder might not have survived if the electors at the electoral college had had the full discretion to go their own way.

Assuming the country can survive the fiasco we find ourselves in today, plain common-sense dictates that we take another look at how the election process was originally designed. If it is not too late, the old processes should be put back into place, with a few tweaks perhaps, but otherwise without delay.

 

Speak out for Ukraine

December 1, 2025

Enough of Trump’s Ukraine insanity. Donald Trump’s recently-announced 28-point plan (the Plan) for Ukraine’s capitulation to Russia would result in a cessation of hostilities until such time as Vladimir Putin took it in his head to swallow the whole country. That would be a catastrophe for Ukraine and a mortal blow to America’s security, just as Senator Jim Risch has repeatedly argued in recent years. Although there are indications that Trump has begun having second thoughts about the Plan, just putting it out there in the first place was a major blunder.

Risch correctly stated the remarkably high stakes for the US in 2022: “This war is not just about Ukraine. The fight in Ukraine is a strategic challenge with long-term implications for the free world. Ukraine is the opening move in a game to tip the balance of power toward Russia and China to dominate the world for the next century or more. For the sake of our country and the sake of the free world, the Administration needs to get serious about supporting Ukraine with war-fighting materials so we can prevent a more sweeping conflict from coming to our shores.” That was a knowledgeable Senator, speaking truth to President Biden. Risch’s concerns were well-founded at that time and remain so today.

The Plan is essentially a Russian wish list dictated to a clueless New York real estate developer, Steve Witcoff, without input from Ukraine or our NATO allies. The Europeans were blind-sided and gobsmacked that the Plan would force Ukraine to give up strategic ground, reduce its army by more than half and give amnesty to Russia for its genocidal conduct. Many other provisions of the Plan would reward Putin for his aggression and leave the door open for further aggression against Ukraine, as well as our NATO allies.

Several GOP lawmakers dared to slam the Plan. Senator Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), the chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said: “Ukraine should not be forced to give up its lands to one of the world’s most flagrant war criminals in Vladimir Putin.” Former Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said: “Rewarding Russian butchery would be disastrous to America’s interests.”

The Plan claims that Ukraine would receive “reliable security guarantees” but those appear to be Putin’s word that he would behave himself. Could we trust Putin to keep his word? Last December, Risch emphatically stated that the Russians “are cheaters, they're liars, they’re murderers. They’re the worst people on the planet, after what they did to Ukraine.” He was absolutely correct. Putin simply cannot be trusted.

The last time Trump made a complete settlement of a major conflict was the Doha Accord between the US and Taliban in February 2020 to end the war in Afghanistan. Our Afghan partners were excluded from the Doha negotiations, just like the Ukrainians were excluded from developing the Plan. Like the Plan, the Doha Accord contained no reliable security guarantees for the Afghan government. In fact, the Taliban began violating that deal before the ink had dried. Trump made no credible effort to call the Taliban to account for those violations. The ill-advised Doha Accord laid the groundwork for the collapse of Afghanistan’s military and the Taliban take-over in April 2021. The moral of the story is that excluding one of the main combatants from settlement negotiations is a high-handed invitation to failure.

Another indication of Putin’s ill intentions is the series of provocative actions taken by the Russians against our NATO allies. Incursions by Russian  aircraft, drones and agents into NATO territory signals that Putin has his eyes on other satellites of the defunct Soviet Union. Ukraine will just be the first domino to fall, if he has his way.

What, then, should the US do to protect our national security interests with respect to the war between Russia and Ukraine? Senator Risch put it this way: “The way we protect U.S. interests and stay out of this fight is by giving Ukrainians the tools to defend their sovereignty. Give Ukraine missiles. Give them airplanes. Give them humanitarian assistance.” Amen!!

The question now is whether the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will use his considerable influence to stand up for the national security interests of Ukraine, NATO and the United States, as he has so clearly stated them over the years? Will he put on his big boy pants and loudly speak out for Ukraine? Or will he give in to personal political considerations and sell them out, merely to win another term in office? Is Trump's re-election endorsement more valuable to Risch than his long-held convictions? We will soon see the true measure of this man.