JOYCE VANCE

 

Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance

The End of the Poll Tax

Joyce Vance

Mar 24, 2026

---

Today marks the 60th anniversary of the official demise of the poll tax at the hands of the Supreme Court of the United States. On March 24, 1966, the Court banned their use in state and local elections in Harper v. Virginia Bd. of Elections. The Court held that “wealth or fee paying has . . . no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned.”

 

Harper was necessary because there was a loophole in the 24th Amendment, which had been ratified two years earlier. The Amendment abolished poll taxes in federal elections, but failed to address state and local ones. The Court slammed the door shut on any notion that states could discriminate against voters’ fundamental rights when the federal government was forbidden to do so.

“Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society. Especially since the right to exercise the franchise in a free and unimpaired manner is preservative of other basic civil and political rights, any alleged infringement of the right of citizens to vote must be carefully and meticulously scrutinized."

Today’s Harper anniversary is ironic, with Donald Trump pushing the SAVE Act and Senate Republicans considering it, although it seems to be foundering. The Act, which would require voters to prove they are citizens, functions like a poll tax. Voters would need passports or other forms of identification that are expensive to obtain in order to exercise their right to vote. Additional costs would be borne by certain voters, like married women, whose current name doesn’t match the one on their birth certificate.

It’s clear Republicans understand what the SAVE Act is about: it’s not preventing non-citizens from voting, because that’s not a real problem. It’s about maintaining Republican control despite what the voters want.

 

Harper: “To introduce wealth or payment of a fee as a measure of a voter's qualifications is to introduce a capricious or irrelevant factor. The degree of the discrimination is irrelevant. In this context -- that is, as a condition of obtaining a ballot -- the requirement of fee paying causes an "invidious" discrimination…that runs afoul of the Equal Protection Clause.”

Today, Democracy Docket reported that Texas Republican Chip Roy, one of the leading proponents of the SAVE Act in the House of Representatives, and someone who has repeatedly dismissed “concerns that millions of Americans would face unnecessary barriers while registering to vote if the draconian bill became law,” took a different view in private.

In a video obtained by independent media organization Call to Activism, Roy discusses how difficult it was for one of his employees, a woman, to obtain the identification she needed to get a REAL ID, which is similar to what the SAVE Act requires. In the recording, Roy says, “So, she had to go through a bunch of hoops. She’s gonna have to go back to the DMV twice because they want the paperwork. That’s just part of the issue with how we try to set up the ability to identify people.”

This March 13 exchange between Senators Cornyn and Durbin is illustrative:

·        Senator Cornyn: I don't understand how the SAVE Act could disenfranchise millions of Americans.

 

·        Senator Durbin: You have to present identification, but your driver’s license is not acceptable. 50% of Americans do not have a passport. Those who want to obtain it so they can vote will pay $186

 

The Court in Harper: “In a recent searching reexamination of the Equal Protection Clause, we held, as already noted, that ‘the opportunity for equal participation by all voters in the election of state legislators’ is required…We decline to qualify that principle by sustaining this poll tax. Our conclusion, like that, in Reynolds v. Sims, is founded not on what we think governmental policy should be, but on what the Equal Protection Clause requires.”

We shouldn’t have to “go through a bunch of hoops” to exercise a fundamental right. Republicans know exactly what they’re doing with the SAVE Act and other measures designed to make it more difficult for Americans to vote.

The Court concluded Harper like this: “[T]o repeat, wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned.”

We’re in this together,

Joyce

ROBERT HUBBELL

 

On the eve of No Kings 3.0, Democrats win in Trump’s backyard.

March 25, 2026

Robert B. Hubbell Mar 25

There is much to discuss about Tuesday’s developments, but first, a few nudges:

First, do you have a plan for March 28, 2026—No Kings Day 3? If not, check out this site for a protest near you: Over 3,000 No Kings Events Planned for March 28; More Events Added Daily.

Second, if you plan on attending, have you invited a friend? Someone in your life may be waiting to be asked, afraid to speak up. Help them find their voice!

Third, if you are unable to attend in person, consider joining a virtual event. See, for example, the virtual event hosted by Stand Up For Science, here: No Kings 3 Accessible Rally, hosted by Stand up for Science.

More evidence that the resistance is gaining momentum.

These are difficult times. We need all the good news we can get, so let’s start there. In Florida, the Democratic candidate in a special election for a state legislative seat, Emily Gregory, won in a district that includes Mar-a-Lago. See Politico, A Mar-a-Lago flip: Dems win Trump’s hometown Florida House district. Trump won the district in 2024 by 19 points. Emily Gregory defeated the GOP candidate by 2 points, for a total swing of 21 points in two years!

The victory is meaningful standing alone, but it signals the revitalization of the Florida Democratic Party. Politico quoted Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried as follows:

“This victory reiterates an undeniable trend in Florida: With year-round organizing and infrastructure investment, Democrats can run and win anywhere —including Donald Trump’s backyard. Floridians are tired of the chaos, corruption, and sky-high prices on everything from groceries to gas and health care.”

A 21-point swing is not possible without flipping at least some of Trump’s 2024 base. Alternatively, lots of GOP voters in 2024 must have stayed home in the Florida special election. Either way, the results indicate a meaningful softening of support in Trump’s base—and a mounting enthusiasm among Democrats.

The victory in Trump’s backyard is consistent with a poll released Tuesday showing that a core Trump constituency is abandoning the president. See The New Republic, Brutal Poll Says Men Are Abandoning Trump. Per TNR,

• Support for Trump among men (vs. 2024) has dropped 20 points.

• Support for Trump among men under 45 (vs. 2024) has dropped 25 points.

The major driver of the swing against Trump is the economy’s performance, which will only worsen as the effects of the global energy shock drag on the US economy. Per the TNR, Trump has a net negative on the economy among men of 30 points!

The findings of the CNN polling discussed in The New Republic are consistent with another recent poll focusing on support for Trump among men. See Third Way, How Young Men View Trump 2.0 After One Year.

Polls are not elections; elections are elections. But recent polling is consistent with Emily Gregory’s victory in the district that includes Mar-a-Lago. That should give us reason for hope—but not complacency—heading into the midterms.

One final story that is not obviously related to the above, but which will likely accelerate Trump’s slide in the polls, is the presence of ICE at airports. Air travel in the US is generally miserable, but the cut-off of funding for TSA is leading to havoc at airports. In some terminals, security lines are four hours long.

ICE Agents are now standing next to those long lines, holding assault rifles while staring at their cell phones.

As noted by Jay Kuo in his Substack piece, by stationing ICE at the airports, Trump now personally owns the chaos at the airports. See The Status Kuo, Trump Now Owns the Airport Chaos.

Per Jay Kuo,

It’s a political blunder of the highest order. But this is Trump, who never believes the normal rules of political gravity will pull him down.

Good luck with that.

I agree with Jay Kuo’s assessment. Sending ICE to airports is a political blunder from which there is no retreat, except in defeat. For more on Trump’s dwindling options for resolving the TSA standoff, read on!

The on-again, off-again deal to fund TSA.

Yesterday, I wrote about a complicated deal to fund TSA that involved a three-step process to split off TSA funding (with Democratic support), followed by a reconciliation bill to fund ICE and Border Patrol (without Democratic support), which would necessitate an appropriations bill that could be blocked by a Democratic filibuster.

In short, the proposal was a win for Democrats, as it funded TSA but not ICE/CBP. Republicans were trying to sell the deal to Trump with the promise that they would cram provisions of the SAVE Act into the reconciliation bill.

Long story short, I said that the plan to pass the SAVE Act while funding ICE / CBP would not work. On Tuesday, Senator Mike Lee (Utah), said the same thing, posting:

It’s hard to imagine how the SAVE America Act could be passed through reconciliation. And by ‘hard’ I mean ‘essentially impossible.’

As the illusory nature of the promise to pass the SAVE Act dawned on legislators, Republicans in the House walked back their support for the three-step plan. See The Hill, House Republicans pan proposal to split up DHS bill despite Donald Trump openness.

Per The Hill,

House Republicans are pushing back stiffly against the idea of splitting up legislation to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), despite the White House and Senate Republicans saying President Trump is open to doing just that.

See also, Daily Beast, MAGA Melts Down as Trump Considers TACO Plan to End Shutdown and Democracy Docket, Why the GOP’s newest plan to pass SAVE America Act is DOA.

So, where are we on ending the TSA shutdown? In general, I would say that both sides want a resolution but can’t find one. Senate Republicans have made a proposal that Democrats find unacceptable. Strange as it sounds, that is progress; it shows that Republicans are finally taking responsibility as the governing party to fund DHS. The good news is that Democrats are holding their ground on not funding ICE and Border Patrol absent significant reforms.

Developments in Trump’s war on Iran.

Chaos and confusion reign in Trump’s illegal war on Iran, but there may be a unifying theme that explains most of the chaotic events: Trump is desperate for a quick end to the war, but Iran is emboldened, distrustful, and (understandably) aggrieved. As a result, Trump’s desire for an end to the war by the end of this week is running headlong into Iran’s newfound control over the Strait of Hormuz and its demands for security guarantees and reparations. If there is a negotiated settlement, it will likely be hard-won and excruciatingly slow in coming.

Before turning to Trump’s word-salad-meets-dog’s-breakfast news conference on Tuesday, let’s look at the few hard facts we know. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed to countries that Iran views as US allies in the war against Iran. See Strait of Hormuz Live Tracker — Real-Time Shipping & Oil Crisis Monitor.

According to the Tracker,

De facto selective closure with permission-based transit regime. Iran allows passage for non-hostile countries (China, India, Turkey, Pakistan) while blocking US, Israeli, and Western-allied vessels. Strait physically passable but commercially unviable due to insurance withdrawal and Iranian threats.

Per the Tracker, only 3 ships have transited the Strait in the last 24 hours, compared to a daily average of 60 ships.

The Iranian Parliament is drafting legislation to assert permanent control over the Strait of Hormuz by Iran. Per a letter sent by Iran to the International Maritime Organization, Iran said that it would re-open the Strait to vessels not operated by the US, Israel, or “other participants in the aggression.” The latter phrase is ambiguous, but Iran has granted safe passage to ships owned by China, Turkey, Pakistan, India, and Iran’s own vessels. See Financial Times, Iran says ‘non-hostile’ ships can transit Strait of Hormuz.

Iran’s letter to the International Maritime Organization appears to be the “present” that Trump childishly teased during a press conference. If Iran’s letter to the IMO is a “present,” it is a gift to non-US allies. Only in Trump’s telling is a letter continuing the ban on US and Western vessels a “present” to the US. See Bezinga, Iran’s Secret ‘Gift’ To Trump: Hormuz Is Open For Everyone But US Ships.

Trump made a series of contradictory statements that exuded desperation. He alternatively claimed that the US had “won” the war but hoped the US would share control of the Strait of Hormuz with Iran—a concession that suggested Iran had won the war, or had at least not “lost” the war. See Rolling Stone, Trump Declares Iran War Won, Approves Deployment of More Troops.

Trump also variously suggested that he alone, or “Maybe me and the ayatollah, whoever the ayatollah is,” would decide which ships would transit the Strait. This second statement was a concession that Trump has given up on “regime change” as one of the goals of the war. See Reason, Trump says U.S. and Iran could jointly control Strait of Hormuz.

Trump alternatively suggested that peace negotiations were proceeding apace while the US is sending 2,000 paratroopers to the Middle East, a sign that the US is staging troops for a land assault on Iran. See NYTimes (paywalled), Pentagon Orders 2,000 Airborne Troops to Middle East.

Trump’s description of peace negotiations is exaggerated. The US has sent a 15-point peace proposal to Iran—an unusual opener for the country that claims to have “won” the war. See CNBC, U.S. sent Iran 15-point plan to end war, report says.

Iran has made aggressive public demands that Trump has described as “non-starters.” See Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo, Iran Has Trump Over a (Oil) Barrel. Sad.

Per Josh Marshall,

As Reuters reports in this new (paywalled) story, Iran is actually dramatically upping its demands since the start of the war. Those include guarantees of no future attacks, reparations for war damage and formal control of the Strait of Hormuz.

Now, you can demand anything you want. That doesn’t mean you’ll get those things. But when one side is begging for talks and backing off threats, and the other is making maximal demands you know who has the whip hand in the negotiations and indeed in the larger conflict itself. And don’t be surprised if Iran actually gets some of those concessions.

In short, Trump is desperate for a settlement, while Hegseth, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Trump’s advisers are urging him to invade Iran. That is a bad idea, very bad. See the superb analysis by Lucian K. Truscott IV, Bloodbath. If you have any doubts about how bad an idea it is to invade Iran, I urge you to read Truscott’s analysis. He brings knowledge, detail, and analysis that do not appear elsewhere in the media.

Opportunities for Reader Engagement

Below are additional details on the virtual, accessible No Kings Day rally sponsored by Stand Up for Science:

Maybe you’re one of the millions of Americans for whom showing up in person isn’t an option for a myriad of reasons.

YOU are the reason SUFS is partnering with the No Kings organizers to hold the No Kings 3 Accessible Rally — a virtual event for everyone, everywhere to show up and join the fight however you can. I invite you to sign-up here to join us online this Saturday 1:30-3pm EDT!

Our unifying battle cry for this Saturday’s No Kings 3 rally is “Defend our Rights, Protect Our Health, Fight for Our Democracy!” If there’s one thing we proved over the past 13-months is that fighting back against Trump, RFK and MAHA works because it includes EVERYONE.

Please sign-up here to attend our virtual rally this Saturday ... then TAKE A MINUTE TO SHARE THIS LINK as far as you can to ensure anyone who thought they might miss the No Kings 3 protest this Saturday knows now they can join the SUFS No Kings 3 Accessible Rally — the official No Kings 3 protest for everyone, everywhere!

Concluding Thoughts

Friends, the momentum is building. Trump is on the defensive over his illegal war and the DHS / TSA shutdown. No Kings 3.0 could not have arrived at a consequential moment in our nation’s history. Many years hence, your descendants will ask where you were on No Kings 3.0. Make them proud. Allow them to say with pride, “My ancestors stood up and spoke out for America when others were afraid or indifferent. Their resistance preserved democracy and safely carried us to this point. Now, it our turn to do it again . . . .”

See you in the streets on Saturday!

HEATHER 3-24-26

 

March 24, 2026 Heather Cox Richardson Mar 25 This morning, economist Paul Krugman came right out and said it: “People close to Trump are trading based on national secrets.” Another word for that, he said, is “treason.” The evidence for such a claim is the sudden and isolated jump in trading volume in S&P 500 and oil futures about 15 minutes before Trump suddenly announced that the U.S. and Iran were in negotiations to end the war—an announcement that turned out to be false. The oil futures trade alone was worth about $580 million, the Financial Times estimated. As Krugman notes, exploiting confidential information for financial gain, otherwise known as “insider trading,” is illegal. But exploiting confidential information about national security for private financial gain is something else again. It puts profit-making above Americans’ safety. “I’d very much like to know exactly who was making those trades yesterday morning,” Krugman wrote. “Were they people directly in the know, or billionaires/traders who paid people in the know for tips?” There certainly are signs that Trump considers the government his to do with as he wishes to keep himself in wealth and power. In the Washington Post Monday, architecture critic Philip Kennicott examined how Trump is smashing the historic lines and architecture of the national capital. Trump’s plan for a gargantuan 90,000-square-foot ballroom will dominate the original White House and cut into the lines of the driveway designed a century ago by the great landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted. His proposed 250-foot arch near Arlington National Cemetery would be the largest triumphal arch in the world, overshadowing the nearby Lincoln Memorial. His proposed “National Garden of American Heroes” between the Lincoln Memorial and the Tidal Basin would take the park near monuments dedicated to Presidents Thomas Jefferson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt and to the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and fill it with hastily made statues to “showbiz stars, folk heroes, and sports celebrities.” By stuffing oversight panels with his own cronies, Trump has destroyed the process of design review intended to preserve Washington as a city whose layout and design reflects the simplicity, dignity, and majesty of the American people. Yesterday the White House began the process of ripping the beige Tennessee flagstone pavers out of the West Colonnade that connects the Oval Office and West Wing to the Executive Residence. Trump wants to replace them with black granite, which will contrast more effectively with the gold doodads and the gold-framed portraits in the “Presidential Walk of Fame” Trump has installed along the walk. Trump’s vision of the U.S. is one tied to fossil fuels, leading the administration to declare war on renewable energy. On Monday it announced it will pay $928 million in taxpayer money to the large French energy company TotalEnergies to buy back leases it acquired under the Biden administration to build two wind farms, one off New York and the other off North Carolina. TotalEnergies will then invest that money in U.S. oil and gas projects, including one in Texas that will export liquefied natural gas. “The era of taxpayers subsidizing unreliable, unaffordable and unsecure energy is officially over, and the era of affordable, reliable and secure energy is here to stay,” said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. North Carolina governor Josh Stein, a Democrat, told Maxine Joselow and Brad Plumer of the New York Times: “Our state has the offshore wind potential to power millions of homes with renewable American-made energy. It’s ludicrous and wasteful that the Trump Administration is spending $1 billion in taxpayer money to pay off a company to stop it from investing private dollars to create the clean energy we need.” Meanwhile, as airport lines grow because of the ongoing shutdown that means Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents aren’t getting paid, Trump yesterday sent in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to fourteen airports in eleven cities, including Atlanta, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, Phoenix, Cleveland, Fort Myers, New Orleans, and New York City. While CNN’s Brian Stelter speculated that Trump got the idea for putting ICE agents in the airports from “Linda from Arizona,” who called in to “The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show” last Friday, Trump ally Steve Bannon suggested on his podcast War Room yesterday that “[w]e can use this as a test run, as a test case, to really perfect ICE’s involvement in the 2026 midterms.” Jacob Knutson of Democracy Docket noted that Trump’s deployment of ICE agents to airports showed both that he sees them as his own personal law enforcement agents and that he is willing to deploy them in situations that are not related to their actual job description. Democratic senators have tried repeatedly to get Senate Republicans to agree to fund all of the Department of Homeland Security except ICE, the agency responsible for the violence in Minnesota that led to the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. For those, Democrats have demanded reforms. But Trump has kept pressure on Republican senators not to pass such a measure, instead demanding that Senate majority leader John Thune kill the filibuster to pass legislation without the votes of Democrats. On Sunday, Trump posted that he would not agree to any funding proposal unless Democrats also agreed to support the so-called SAVE America Act, which would require voters to show not just ID but also proof of citizenship, would end mail-in voting, and would attack the rights of transgender Americans. After the Senate confirmed former senator Markwayne Mullin late yesterday as secretary of homeland security, replacing former secretary Kristi Noem, Republicans offered to Democrats a measure that funded DHS without funding ICE, but made no reforms to the agency. To fund ICE—and perhaps to pass pieces of the SAVE America Act—they plan to use the process of budget reconciliation, which cannot be filibustered and thus can be used to pass measures without any Democratic support. Democrats rejected the Republicans’ offer, noting that Republicans have blocked eight different Democratic attempts to fund everything in the Department of Homeland Security other than ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the parent agency for Border Patrol. The Democrats will make another offer. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), who as vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee is central to the talks, said Trump’s demands have made negotiations difficult and added: “We’ve been very clear that if we’re talking about funding any part of ICE and CBP, we absolutely must take some key steps to rein them in. The current Republican offer in front of us does not do that. Reforms must make it into law.” The SAVE America Act Trump wants is pretty openly a voter suppression measure: voting by undocumented immigrants is already virtually nonexistent, and it is already illegal. And the Brookings Institution reported in 2025 that only about four cases of mail fraud occur per 10 million mail-in ballots, or 0.000043% of total mail ballots cast. But Republicans are using the idea of voter fraud to argue for measures that could toss more than 21 million Americans off the voter rolls. There is an especial irony in Trump attacking mail-in voting as fraudulent: Bill Barrow of the Associated Press reported today that Trump voted by mail in Tuesday’s elections in Florida. White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales explained Trump’s position, saying that “the SAVE America Act has commonsense exceptions for Americans to use mail-in ballots for illness, disability, military, or travel—but universal mail-in voting should not be allowed because it’s highly susceptible to fraud.” In today’s special legislative elections in Florida, Democrat Emily Gregory flipped the house district in which the Trump Organization’s Mar-a-Lago sits. The district went for Trump by 11% in 2024. Gregory, a business owner and a military spouse, defeated a Republican who received Trump’s “Complete and Total Endorsement” in January. At an election night party, Gregory told her supporters: “When we started this, nobody thought it was possible. They thought we were crazy. I knew my community. I knew we deserved better. We deserve a leader who will fight for us.” Gregory told CNN’s Erin Burnett that she did not focus on Trump, but focused on her Republican opponent and the “issues that matter most to Florida families.” “Everyone is feeling that affordability crisis, and the last thing that Florida families needed when they’re struggling is $4 gas,” she explained. Trump’s niece, psychologist Mary Trump, posted: “The Democrats just flipped a state house seat in the district where Donald committed voter fraud by casting his ballot illegally by mail.” Tonight, Eric Schmitt of the New York Times reported that the Pentagon has ordered to the Middle East about 2,000 military personnel from the U.S. Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, trained to deploy anywhere in the world within eighteen hours. About 2,500 Marines from the 31st Expeditionary Unit will arrive in the region later this week.

HOWARD TULLMAN JOINS LISA DENT ON WGN RADIO TO DISCUSS HIS INC. MAGAZINE ARTICLE AND THE NEW CULTURAL STADIUM PLAN

 LISTEN TO THE SHOW HERE

LISTEN TO THE SHOW HERE

 

Trump Must Resign And everyone should say so. Noah Berlatsky Mar 24 Trump has disgraced his office and spews a firehose of daily high crimes and misdemeanors from his orange mouth orifice on the White House lawn like so much red, white, and blue bile. The examples are so manifest and prolific that it seems futile to even try to list examples, but just for starters —he has been held liable for sexual assault and has been credibly accused of raping a 13-year-old —he presided over and cosigned a mass genocide in shutting down USAID that is expected to kill 14-25 million people —he launched an illegal war of aggression in Iran and is illegally murdering people on fishing boats in the waters around Venezuela —he has created an armed, reckless, unaccountable right-wing militia which is terrorizing American cities and murdering their residents —he regularly launches disgusting personal attacks on those he considers his enemies, mocking their deaths, targeting them for racist smears; and using the full weight of the federal government to terrorize and immiserate them —his regime is an orgy of corruption and self-dealing Again, I could go on almost indefinitely. Trump is a moral black hole, a fascist, a would-be dictator, a determined ignoramus, and a greedy piece of shit. He demonstrates every day that he sees the presidency not as a sacred trust or as an opportunity for public service but as his personal piggy bank and grievance abettor. He is grindingly incompetent and grindingly malevolent, and he has no place near power of any sort. He should resign. And everyone—the public, the media, Democrats, Republicans, people who see him on the street—should demand that he do so. Resignation is a better than impeachment (for now) When you say “Trump would resign,” the immediate reaction is likely to be, “yeah, but he won’t, so what’s the point?” It’s true that Trump is very unlikely to willingly step down. But calls for resignation can be powerful in themselves if repeated consistently and forcefully. More, demanding Trump’s resignation solves a number of tactical and messaging problems which have divided and confused the broad opposition to MAGA in unhelpful ways. Democrats, and opponents of Trump in general, sometimes struggle to articulate a critique or a rejection of Trump that feels adequate to his abnormality and cruelty. Denouncing his policies or his statements, or casting votes against him, or doing any of the other things that you do in opposition in a democracy, all can feel like weak tea when the president is attempting to destroy democracy and the Constitution all day every day. In an effort to meet the moment, people in and out of office have cast about for various remedies. On social media you’ll often see Trump critics demanding the implementation of the 25th Amendment, which makes provisions for removing an incapacitated president from office. Many on the left—and some in congress—have also called for Trump’s impeachment. There are difficulties with each of these approaches. As political scientist Jonathan Bernstein points out, the 25th Amendment simply was never intended to remove a president who was alert enough to contest the removal. It’s supposed to deal with a president in a coma, and if your president isn’t in a coma, it’s pretty much useless. Impeachment, in contrast, is designed to deal with a president who keeps attacking the Constitution. But in a partisan era, it’s a dead letter if the president’s party controls Congress, as they currently do. Some argue that the Democrats should keep putting forward impeachment articles anyway to highlight the president’s crimes. Others believe that repeated failed impeachment attempts will simply embolden the president and make Democrats look weak without restraining him in any way. I’m more on the “let’s keep trying to impeach him” side. But I think you can disagree in good faith on the tactics here. The problem is that this good faith disagreement then becomes its own fight, and one where much of the attention gets shifted away from the guy whose evil you are supposedly trying to highlight. When Democrats don’t bring impeachment articles—or when they do and impeachment fails—many people are going to end up excoriating Democrats for being weak, or feckless, or insufficiently committed to defeating Trump. And I’m not against criticizing Democrats. But if the goal of impeachment is in part to highlight the unique, terrifying danger of Trump, and you spend all your time talking about how bad the Democrats are, then things have gone awry. Calling for Trump’s resignation, however, solves all these problems. Demanding a Trump resignation is the right thing to do, and it’s an easy thing to do. It requires no procedures, no legislative battles. It just requires stating the truth—that Trump should resign because he is an evil, cruel man who hates the Constitution. The responsibility to resign and show minimal respect for the Constitution is on Trump and only Trump—and every day he does not resign shows once again how much he hates America and all the people in it. “Trump must resign” is a clear moral statement, and it puts the onus to respond entirely on the most powerful, most evil person in the country, who refuses to fulfill any of his obligations, including the obligation to remove himself if he refuses to fulfill his oath. It’s straightforward; it’s clear; it’s a demand and an action that meet the moment. But will it work? Demands for resignation can provide a moral clarity that unites the opposition rather than dividing it. As a practical demand, though, is it just symbolic? Trump’s not actually going to resign, right? The answer there is that of course Trump won’t resign…unless he does. It’s worth remembering that no president has ever been removed from office by the impeachment process. But one president, Richard Nixon, did in fact resign in disgrace because of public pressure. Part of that pressure was from the impeachment process itself; Nixon didn’t want to face the House and then the Senate because he thought he would lose. For this reason, and many others, Democrats should definitely pursue impeachment if they have control of the House and/or (god willing) the Senate, because impeachment can put great pressure on the President. They should hold hearings into Trump’s misconduct (including the horrific accusations of rape) for the same reason. Demands for resignation, speculation about resignation, and framing resignation as the correct response to weakness and/or misconduct can also have their own logic, though—a logic which can rationalize and connect other criticism and create its own momentum. This is what happened with Joe Biden, whose low approval ratings powered calls for him to drop out of the 2024 presidential race, while those calls for him to drop out, and speculation that he might, fueled negative stories about his presidency, robbed him of support, and probably damaged his approval. Similarly, the New York Times’ relentless campaign against Harvard President Claudine Gay was focused on explicit calls for her to resign—the will she/won’t she question helped fuel more press coverage and more pressure, finally forcing her from office. Trump is a lot more powerful than the president of Harvard, and—unlike Biden or Richard Nixon—he’s largely indifferent to the fate of and the views of his own party. Pushing him to resign would be very difficult and would be a long and brutal campaign. But that’s all the more reason to start working on it as soon as possible. Whenever Trump does the awful thing of the day, Democrats, the media, random passersby, should all point out that this is more evidence that he is unfit, is violating his oath, and should immediately resign. What about J.D. Vance? One final concern for many might be that if Trump did resign, that would leave ghoulish Vice-President J.D. Vance in charge. Vance is a misogynist Nazi piece-of-shit. Trump is awful; how can we be sure that Vance would be better? The thing about Vance is that he was a vocal Trump critic until he realized that Trump was the route to power. He then abased and debased himself in praise of the Orange One. I think Vance’s conversion to evil was sincere in some respects. But his flexibility also suggests that he is able and willing to adapt to the political environment in a way that Trump is very much not. A world in which Trump has been forced to resign in disgrace is a world in which Trump’s presidency and policy program is widely recognized as a massive toxic failure. Vance in that situation will be pretty eager to distance himself from Trumpism and MAGA. This isn’t to say Vane would be a good president. He would be a horrific president. But when you win, you win, and political actors tend to have to adapt themselves to that win. Forcing a Trump resignation would be a massive win. The world and the country would be a better place for it, whatever awfulness Vance then brought to the table. It’s worth pushing for victory because (a) sufficient to the day is the evil thereof and (b) the evil thereafter is an evil which has to deal with the fact that you’ve crushed one evil already. And, you know, one big virtue of resignation is that everyone can do it. You can call for Vance to resign; you can call for RFK to resign; you can call for Sean Duffy to resign. They should all resign. We should say so, because it’s fun, because it’s righteous, because it’s true, and because it can, in fact, make the fascists cringe. Sometimes, even, maybe, it might make them resign.