Tag: trump

Options After Callais

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

What are the options for dealing with Callais’ decimation of Sec. 2 of the Voting Rights Act and Rucho’s determination that partisan redistricting claims are not justiciable in the federal courts?

Callais is already leading to the destruction of Black-majority congressional districts and to the destruction of any hope for a multi-racial democracy, especially in the South. Rucho has led to a battle to the bottom, in which state legislatures have begun redistricting congressional districts to the benefit of the majority party in those states’ legislatures.

There are three principal responses: federal anti-gerrymandering legislation, state anti-legislation, and proportional representation.

Federal Anti-Gerrymandering Legislation

Congress has the power, pursuant to Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution, to enact laws governing the time, place, and manner of elections for Members of the House of Representatives. Democrats have repeatedly introduced bills in Congress that would prohibit states from engaging in partisan gerrymandering or redistricting and from redistricting congressional districts in mid-decade. The current bills are S. 2885 and H.R. 5449.

Those bills would prohibit any state from using “a redistricting plan to conduct an election that, when considered on a statewide basis, has been drawn with the intent or has the effect of materially favoring or disfavoring any political party.” They would establish criteria for deciding whether a districting plan was adopted for partisan reasons, would establish a private right of action with three-judge panels and a right to appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and would require each state to establish independent, non- partisan redistricting commissions.

The House passed, in 2022, the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, which contained prohibitions against partisan congressional redistricting. But the bill died in the Senate because of a Republican filibuster.

Right now, the bills prohibiting partisan redistricting would meet a similar fate, and would be vetoed by Pres. Trump if the Senate amended the filibuster rules to let them pass. Republicans now believe that partisan redistricting is in their partisan best interests.

It is possible that Democrats in states with legislatures controlled by their party will be able to create enough new Democratic congressional seats to cancel out the new Republican congressional seats created by Republican state legislators. Only if the two parties realize that they are evenly disadvantaged by partisan redistricting will congressional Republicans probably agree to sponsor these bills.

State Anti-Gerrymandering Legislation

A number of states require redistricting to be done by independent commissions, provided that partisan redistricting claims are justiciable in those states’ courts, or otherwise prohibit or limit partisan redistricting. Florida, for example, has state constitutional provisions prohibiting maps “drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent.”

Those provisions did not stop Florida Gov. DeSantis and the Republican- controlled state legislature from adopting new maps that, if adopted, would net 4 new seats for Republicans. A circuit court judge, on May 26, 2026, refused to issue a preliminary injunction because he concluded there was “insufficient evidence of impermissible intent.” That judge would have accepted the legislature’s denial that Donald Duck is a duck.

Proportional Representation

Another approach would be to abandon gerrymandering altogether, by providing for proportional representation on a state-wide basis. For example, assume that a state has 10 congressional districts and that Party A won 60% of the congressional vote state-wide, while Party B won 40% of the vote. In a proportional system, six of the state’s districts would be represented by politicians affiliated with Party A, and 40% by representatives from Party B.

In that system, the districts with the highest votes for Party A would have representatives from that party. That would eliminate the worst inequities of partisan gerrymandering. People would no longer see their votes wasted because of the drawing of district boundaries. That would incentivize each political party and each party’s voters to vote, regardless of the way the boundaries are drawn.

However, there is a real possibility that a proportional-representation scheme in a state with a large number of congressional districts, such as California or Texas, could be won by minor parties, which could further fracture the political system. Overall, however, this kind of scheme would reduce extreme partisanship and eliminate the current race to the bottom of racial gerrymandering.

Written By Barry Roseman, SU4W Board Member

Opinion: We Need Guardrails

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

As a long-time resident of Colorado, I appreciate guardrails.

Let me give you an example.

When I drive from Denver to Winter Park, Granby and Steamboat Springs, Colorado, I need to go over Berthoud Pass on U.S. 40. I rely on guardrails on the eastern approach to Berthoud to protect against situations like a flat tire, driving when exhausted, or even an avalanche — all of which could plunge me hundreds of feet to the valley floor without that barrier.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “guardrail” as “a bar along the edge of something steep, such as stairs or a cliff, to prevent people from falling off.” But the term is also used metaphorically to refer to regulations or frameworks designed to ensure ethical conduct and prevent abuses of power.

Vice President Harris warned voters in 2024 that Donald Trump, if re-elected as president, would not have any effective guardrails. That prediction was accurate. In his first 16 months of this second term, Trump has operated without most of the institutional guardrails that have constrained his predecessors.

Trump populated his cabinet and his top-level advisors in his first term with those who had deep knowledge of the perils of acting thoughtlessly. This time, his primary criterion has been their loyalty to Trump. Cabinet meetings have become parodies, with person after person praising him, discussing the supposed wisdom of his decisions, competing with each other for his approval. The result, unsurprisingly, is that no one in the Executive Branch, with the exception of Fed. Chair Jerome Powell, is willing to second-guess his decisions.

The Congress has abdicated its institutional role as a co-equal branch of government. Senate and House Republicans have voted against five different War Powers resolutions against the increasingly unpopular war against Iran. Even Republicans who oppose endless wars have been quieted by the threat of primary election challenges.

Overall, the federal courts have been less deferential to Trump. The Supreme Court has used its shadow docket to grant Trump a series of stays in decisions concerning immigration and other matters.

But, Trump has had less success getting unfriendly countries to bend to his wishes. Iran, in particular, has fought Trump to a standstill in his war against that country, blocking the Strait of Hormuz until the U.S. lifts its blockade of Iranian ports. It has refused to meet with American envoys as long as the American blockade continues. “Since the Iranians are obviously negotiating very skillfully – or simply not negotiating,” German Chancellor Merz said, “a whole nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership.”

Trump has said that he doesn’t “need international law” and that his power is constrained by his “own morality.” That’s like relying on the sobriety of an alcoholic to keep that person from plunging hundreds of feet to his death from the Berthoud Pass road.

No president in American history, with the possible exception of Richard Nixon, has needed guardrails. Other presidents, even those who have made major changes to the federal government, have operated mostly within the law.

FDR, for example, got his programs adopted by Congress and appealed directly to the American people in support of his programs. When he made controversial proposals, such as to increase the number of Supreme Court justices after that court had ruled against New Deal programs, he tried to do that by legislation and retreated in the face of public opposition. Abraham Lincoln populated his cabinet with political rivals. Other presidents have filled their cabinets with powerful people with strong agendas, such as Alexander Hamilton, Frances Perkins and Henry Kissinger. No president other than Trump has needed or tolerated the level of pure sycophancy shown by Trump’s band of yes- people.

The ultimate guardrail, however, is the people.

People across the country have rebelled against ICE’s militarized, aggressive, and lawless war against immigrants. Millions have participated in No Kings rallies. Trump’s tariffs have delivered higher prices while manufacturing jobs continue to disappear. Public opinion polls show that voters have turned against Trump because of economic woes, increased inflation, and the war against Iran.

The ultimate check and balance in our constitutional order is the voter. If control of the House and/or the Senate passes the Democrats this November, the Congress will be able to perform its traditional role of guarding against autocratic power by the Executive Branch.

There are many ways in which a Democratic-controlled Congress can exercise that power. It almost certainly will launch investigations into the rampant corruption of the Trump administration and into the myriad and often illegal ways it has operated. It can use the power of the purse to reinstate agencies that have been abolished or gutted, such as U.S. AID and the Department of Education.

We need to do everything we can to get the people to restore the institutional guardrails that have been missed during the second Trump term. And, if a blue tsunami appears in six months, the Democrats will need to deliver.

It is not too much of an exaggeration to say that American democracy and the future of the world are on the line.

Written By Barry Roseman, SU4W Board Member

Cracks In MAGA’s Base Encourages Worker Advocates Preparing For Fall Elections

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

As the new year begins, the seemingly unending series of missteps by the current White House, especially on the economy, is feeding a growing number of defections of Trump loyalists away from their unbreakable bond to the chief executive.

This turn away from him, shown by recent polling, gives additional openings for worker advocates to return a pro-worker majority to Congress come November.

An NBC poll from last month reported a drop of 8 points among respondents “strongly” favoring the chief executive, down from a high of 78% in April. Such a support loss is significant considering the chief executive’s narrow margin of victory in 2024.  The same poll showed the percentage of “MAGA” Republicans has dropped from 57% in April to 50% last month.

The data shows voters increasingly disapprove of his handling of the economy, with just 26% believing Trump is doing a good job. The New York Times reported that as of January 2,  Trump’s disapproval rating was at 54%, compared with approval of 42%. Also, a majority of Americans, including one-third of Republicans,  now hold Trump more responsible than Biden for the economy.

Trump has also seen faltering numbers within his own party: only 75% of Republicans approved of his handling of the economy in November, down from 82% in July, according to Marquette University polling; and his approval rating among white, college-educated men dropped to 40% from 47% in June according to Fox News polling.  

The president has experienced several notable breaks with his MAGA base in recent months. Despite his resistance, the House approved legislation last month requiring the Justice Department to release documents detailing its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Trump endorsed the bill after it won enough Republican support to pass, however, his Department of Justice has still reportedly failed to produce some million additional pages.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports that leaders of the Republican “MAGA” wing, alienated by his obliviousness to the cost of living, are “checking out” on Trump. In effect, it reports that Trump has reneged on the most important promises he made to win MAGA votes, including halting cost of living and inflation increases, as well as his prioritizing of international affairs.

A recent Economist/YouGov poll (Nov. 28-Dec. 1) found Trump had a 38% approval rating and 57% disapproval rating, the seventh week in succession that his rating was a -15% or lower. He ends the year with 39% approval and 56% disapproval ratings in this poll, a downward trend since the start of his second term: 51% of respondents said the economy is getting worse.

Under a November poll by NPR/PBS/Marist, Democrats have an advantage headed into next year’s midterms, with 55% saying they were more likely to vote Democratic, compared to 41% saying they would vote Republican. 

Potentially more ominous for the administration, polls reflect disillusionment with the chief executive among some groups whose support was key to his victory.  Specifically, Hispanic and Latinx voters are reconsidering their choices, according to media interviews. This offers an answer to the question whether the favorable swing of these voters was a permanent or momentary realignment.

Pew Research Center polling reflects this change. Latinos have grown pessimistic since the 2024 presidential election. Most say their situation has worsened, and as Trump’s second term unfolds, Latinos are increasingly critical of his job performance and immigration/economic policies – key issues for Latino voters.

In a striking result, some 55% of Latinos feel “very strongly” that Trump has done a bad job as president, contrasted with 18% who feel “very strongly” the opposite. The same polling finds pessimism has spiked among Latinos. 68% of Hispanic adults say the situation in the U.S. is worse for Hispanics today than a year ago, the first time in the poll’s two-decade history that a majority said their situation deteriorated. 61% of U.S. Latinos said Trump’s policies worsened the economy, while roughly one-third struggled to pay for groceries, medical care, and housing.

Blunders committed in acting on policy fronts may help explain the rising disillusionment. As one example, the demolition of the White House East Wing, has been met with disapproval from a broad spectrum of voters in polls. Trump building a $400 million dollar gilded “ballroom” while increasing numbers of Americans have trouble feeding and housing their families cannot have assuaged voters’ economic disappointment.

The recent, and apparently misdirected, military strike in Nigeria, ostensibly to help Christian residents but landing in an overwhelmingly Muslim province, appears to be an attempt at shoring up failing support among fundamentalist Christians, and may betray concern among advisers about softening of support from this element of their base.  

The plethora of actions aimed at institutionalizing the racist and white supremacist attitudes of Trump and his key advisers, including Stephen Miller, may also offer a basis for worker advocates to energize other minority group members. Indeed, while polling shows support for the administration’s efforts to tighten the southern border, it also reflects negativity towards the efforts to remove immigrants generally. The New York Times reported in November that most Americans favor reforming the legal immigration process instead. Decisions to halt visiting rights and immigration application processing for nearly forty (largely Black or brown) nations can hardly comfort Americans with relatives there. This is particularly striking when contrasted with the widely publicized policy granting accelerated immigration processing to (white) South Africans.  

It is too soon to know the American public’s view of the latest international-law-breaking gambit: the raid to have U.S. troops apprehend Venezuela’s president, after conferring with U.S. oil companies. But, the often-stated goal of seeing these corporations take over oil production can hardly be expected to mollify Trump voters annoyed with his prioritization of international matters.

In sum, a worker advocate campaign strategy emphasizing the administration’s failure to address the crowning themes of improving economic conditions and immigration control should resonate with a wide range of voters come November. Careful attention to the specific issues most important in individual districts, combined with the general economic pain theme, offers promise of change that will make a difference for the workers on whom the economy truly depends.

Written By Paul Merry, SU4W Board Member

Year In Review: Trump’s 2025 Record on Employee Rights

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

Year In Review: Trump’s 2025 Record on Employee Rights

If you care about labor and employment law issues, you should down a stiff drink and then contemplate this incomplete list of Trump’s destruction of those rights during the first ten months of his second term: 

Employment discrimination 

  • Trump revoked Executive Order 11246, issued by Pres. Lyndon Johnson in 1965, which prohibits employment discrimination by federal government contractors. 
  • He instructed the Department of Justice to ensure that federal contractors and other private parties do not promote Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) programs, without defining just what is a DEI program. 
  • Elimination of DEI programs has resulted in a decline in the hiring of employees of color and of women, and it has increased the incidence of discrimination and bias in the workplace. 
  • He issued several executive orders claiming that there are only two genders and targeting trans people for unequal treatment in a variety of areas, including in the military, in prisons and in passports. 
  • He removed two commissioners and the general counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) without cause. 
  • The EEOC, under its new leadership, has dismissed all of its discrimination cases alleging bias against trans people, removed a rule that said that abortion-related restrictions constitute pregnancy discrimination, and has filed cases involving employees’ religious observances, with a particular focus on “eradicating anti-Christian bias.” 
  • The EEOC has dismissed cases alleging disparate-impact discrimination, that is, where a facially neutral practice has a disproportionately adverse effect on a protected class of employees. 
  • The EEOC has claimed that programs designed to train, mentor or sponsor employees because of their sex, race or national origin are discriminatory. 

U.S. Department of Labor 

  • Trump reduced the minimum wage for employees of federal contractors. 
  • The U.S. Department of Labor (“USDOL”) has proposed abolishing more than 60 regulations, including: 
  • Eliminating federal minimum wage and overtime protections for home health care workers. 
  • Providing that disabled employees can be paid a sub-minimum wage, depriving them of the same minimum wages enjoyed by other employees. 
  • Eliminating anti-retaliation protections for migratory farmworkers. 
  • Rescinding a rule that requires employers to provide seat belts in employer-provided transportation for farmworkers. 
  • Rescinding a rule that requires employers to provide adequate lighting at construction sites. 
  • Limiting the scope of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s general safety rule, that applies whenever no specific safety rule is in place. 
  • Stripping Mine Safety and Health Administration district managers of their authority to require mine owners to submit plans for ventilation and to prevent roof collapses in coal mines. 
  • The USDOL has stated that it will not enforce a Biden rule on when a worker is an independent contractor, and has stated that it will revise that rule in a deregulatory direction. 
  • The USDOL has informed an appellate court that it is considering revising a Biden rule that substantially increased coverage of the overtime provisions for salaried employees. 
  • The Trump administration has moved from expansive federal oversight of employment of minors to targeted enforcement and employer-led compliance of federal child labor laws. 
  • Trump has proposed repealing a USDOL policy that restricts 16- and 17-year-old employees from using powered patient lifting devices in nursing homes. 

National Labor Relations Board 

  • He removed the general counsel and one of the members of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), leaving only two members of that five-member board. 
  • As a result, the Board does not have a quorum and is not able to adjudicate cases, including complaints that employers have committed unfair employment practices. 
  • Trump effectively eliminated the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (“FMCS”), an agency that assisted in assisting employers and labor unions in the collective bargaining process. 

Federal Employees’ Rights 

  • Trump fired the chairwoman of the Federal Labor Relations Agency (“FLRA”), an agency that adjudicates disputes between federal agencies and labor unions. 
  • Trump excluded more than 1 million employees in more than 30 federal agencies from union representation. 
  • Trump fired the chair of the Merits Standards Protection Board (“MSPB”), a federal agency that hears appeals of federal employees’ disputes.  Combined with the resignation of another member, that action deprived the MSPB of a quorum for more than eight months. 
  • MSPB hearing officers, their numbers trimmed by budget cuts, are dealing with an overwhelming number of appeals, resulting in delays in resolving their cases.  
  • Trump revoked the federal labor-management forum program, which had enabled federal agencies and their employees to collaborate with each other. 
  • Trump attempted to narrow a Biden executive order that had required federal contractors to sign project labor agreements with subcontractors and associated unions. 
  • Trump fired the head of the Office of Special Counsel, an agency that is supposed to protect federal whistleblowers.  He then nominated Paul Ingrassia to fill that position. 
  • Ingrassia withdrew his nomination because, incredibly, he told a group of fellow Republicans in a text chain that the MLK, Jr., holiday should be “tossed into the seventh circle of hell” and that he has “a Nazi streak.” 

Layoffs of Federal Employees 

  • About 300,000 federal employees have been laid off. 
  • Trump accomplished this by stripping some federal employees of their federal protections, fired probationary employes, urged employees to resign, shut down agencies, implemented reductions in force, and claimed to layoff employees during the shutdown of the federal government. 
  • These layoffs are being contested in the courts, and many have been reversed.  The shutdown-related layoffs have been reversed by statute. 

Written By Barry Roseman, Secretary of the SU4W Board