"Insurrectinist in chief" Donald Trump is delusional about January 6 attack on the US Capitol

Echo opinion published in the Raleigh, North Carolina, The News & Observer newspaper.

We must not allow anyone to rewrite the history of what we all saw happen on January 6 | Opinion

Donald Trump the insurrectionist in chief

My grandfather lied about his age to join the U.S. Army at 16, and fight in World War II, to defend the ideals of freedom and democracy worldwide. Had he still been alive, he would have been devastated by the events of January 6, 2021, and disgusted by recent efforts to minimize the severity of the crimes committed that day. 

I am a patriot and 10-year Coast Guard veteran. I’ve defended my country against enemies, both foreign and domestic. I assisted with enforcing UN sanctions against Iraq in the Persian Gulf, served as a Sea Marshall after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and protected our shores from the entry of illicit drugs and illegal immigrants. Of all my service, some of my proudest moments were as a Coast Guard Liaison to the U.S. House of Representatives. My heart would swell with emotion every time I made my way across the National Mall, toward the Capitol, and through the doors of the Rayburn House Office Building. I held with reverence the opportunity to walk the hallowed halls where the work of our nation has safely taken place for more than 200 years. 

On January 6, 2021, my heart broke as I watched in disbelief and horror a mob of Americans storm our United States Capitol, use force against sworn officers, terrorize elected officials and cause millions of dollars of damage to those same hallowed halls I revere. As a nation, it was hard for us to process these images, including gallows erected within view of the Capitol, coming from within our country. Yet, as dark a day as January 6 was, light emerged quickly when Americans, regardless of political affiliation, condemned those actions and affirmed that a bright line had been crossed. With the third anniversary of January 6, recently passed, some Americans would like us to forget just how egregious the actions of those individuals who stormed the Capitol were. They would like us to believe the rioters were simply exercising their constitutional rights. 

Let’s be clear: Our constitutional rights do not permit us to assault law enforcement officers, unlawfully enter federal buildings, hunt down elected officials with intent to harm them, or vandalize federal property. They do not allow us to attempt to undermine the results of an election we do not like.

If we stand by and allow others to rewrite the events of that day to suit their political interests, we are in danger of permitting future acts of violence against our most valued principles. We must hold firm to the collective outrage we felt in the days and weeks after and use those feelings to fuel our commitment to restoring people’s faith in our government institutions and processes. We must strengthen our muscle to peacefully debate ideas, to participate in civic and political action, and to diligently prevent falsehoods to sit uncontested. Remaining silent would be more comfortable. 

But, if my grandfather was willing to risk death for democracy, discomfort is the least he, and all those who serve, should expect of us. 

Opinion submitted by Theresa Reno-Weber is the chief operating officer and president for North America at Kentucky startup GoodMaps. She served as the president and CEO of Metro United Way in Louisville from 2017 to 2021, was a deputy mayor in Louisville Metro Government from 2012 to 2017, and is a 10-year veteran of the United States Coast Guard.

Gerrymandered districts ordered changed in North Carolina

"...ruling late Tuesday (January 9) marks the second time this decade that the GOP's congressional boundaries in the state have been thrown out.." ~ Associated Press 

Republicans are fearful of immigrants receiving a path to citizenship and they want to suppress their voting rights. Republicans have gerrymandered voting districts to marginalize the political influence of minority groups and new American citizens. (I blogged about this in the blog: Republicans are afraid of immigrants.)

In North Carolina, federal judges have ruled against the state's Republican gerrymandered plan.

An Associated Press report published in the Ohio newspaper the Springfield News-Sun

Feb. 16, 2016, file photo, Republican state Sens. Dan Soucek, left, and Brent Jackson, right, review historical maps during The Senate Redistricting Committee for the 2016 Extra Session in the Legislative Office Building at the N.C. General Assembly, in Raleigh, N.C. Federal judges ruled Tuesday, Jan. 9, 2018, that North Carolina's congressional district map drawn by legislative Republicans is illegally gerrymandered because of excessive partisanship that gave GOP a rock-solid advantage for most seats and must quickly be redone. (Corey Lowenstein/The News & Observer via AP, File)

North Carolina ordered to redraw voting maps set by GOP

Tuesday, January 09, 2018

RALEIGH, N.C. —

Federal judges have ruled that North Carolina's congressional district map drawn by legislative Republicans is illegally gerrymandered because of excessive partisanship that gave the GOP a rock-solid advantage for most seats and must quickly be redone.

The ruling late Tuesday marks the second time this decade that the GOP's congressional boundaries in the state have been thrown out by a three-judge panel. In 2016, another panel tossed out two majority black congressional districts initially drawn in 2011, saying there was no justification for using race as the predominant factor in forming them. The redrawn map was the basis for a new round of lawsuits.

The latest lawsuit — filed by election advocacy groups and Democrats — said the replacement for the racial gerrymander also contained unlawful partisan gerrymanders. Those who sued argued that Republican legislators went too far when they followed criteria designed to retain the party's 10-3 majority in the state delegation.

Tuesday's ruling marks the first time a congressional plan was struck down on partisan gerrymandering claims, according to Allison Riggs, an attorney representing the League of Women Voters of North Carolina and other plaintiffs.

All three judges agreed the "invidious partisanship" in the plan violated the Constitution's equal protection provision and direction to the state to hold congressional elections because it took the power to elect their representatives away from the people.

"We find that the General Assembly drew and enacted the 2016 plan with intent to subordinate the interests of non-Republican voters and entrench Republican control of North Carolina's congressional delegation," U.S. Circuit Court Judge Jim Wynn wrote in the majority opinion. Wynn added that the evidence shows the "plan achieved the General Assembly's discriminatory partisan objective."

The judges ordered the General Assembly to approve another set of districts by Jan. 24.

Candidate filing for the November congressional elections begins Feb. 12, with primaries set for early May. A majority of the judges also agreed the panel would hire a redistricting expert to draw replacement boundaries if the legislature won't.

Through a spokeswoman, Senate Redistricting Committee Chairman Ralph Hise of Mitchell County said lawmakers plan to appeal. There's a good chance Republicans will try to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to block the ruling's enforcement until the justices rule in a similar case from Wisconsin that they heard in the fall. That case involves legislative districts.

The districts "are fair and were drawn following all known rules, and existing case law," state Republican Party Executive Director Dallas Woodhouse said in a news release.

But Bob Phillips with Common Cause, which with other voters filed a lawsuit tried with the League of Women Voters' case, said "politicians will no longer be allowed to use partisan gerrymandering in order to shield themselves from accountability to the public" if the ruling stands.

At the time of the 2016 debate, according to the order, House redistricting chief Rep. David Lewis attempted to justify the criteria by saying "I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats. So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country."

Wynn and U.S. District Judge Earl Britt agreed that the map also violated the First Amendment rights of Democrats in each district where their favored candidate had little chance to win, burdening their freedom of speech and of association. In a separate opinion, District Judge William Osteen wrote that those who sued had failed to prove those rights had been violated.

During a trial in October in Greensboro, attorneys for Republican mapmakers argued that the plaintiffs had blown the partisanship factor out of proportion, saying aspects like incumbent protection and district compactness were considered. But Wynn, in his 191-page opinion, gave lots of credence to the number-crunching of math and political science experts who testified that the only explanation for the 2016 map was partisanship.

Wynn is on a separate three-judge panel weighing whether to accept changes to two dozen state House and Senate districts completed by a special master. Lawmakers redrew legislative maps last August after boundaries originally drawn in 2011 were struck down as racial gerrymanders, but the judges were worried unconstitutional lines remain.

Woodhouse focused his critique on Wynn, a former North Carolina state judge nominated to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals by President Barack Obama. Wynn, according to Woodhouse is "waging a personal, partisan war on North Carolina Republican voters." Osteen was nominated by President George W. Bush while President Jimmy Carter chose Britt.