By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Across the nation, voters showed support for Democrats in key races, delivering defeats to candidates backed by President Trump, including in the New York mayoral race and gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia. These results are seen as a reflection of voter sentiment regarding Trump’s agenda, offering the first significant evaluation of his policies nine months after he returned to power. Despite the president’s attempts to influence outcomes through endorsements and social media engagement, Democrats celebrated the results as a major victory, while Trump attributed the losses to factors like the federal government shutdown. In Virginia, Democrat Abigail Spanberger was elected, while New Jersey voters opted to retain Democrats in power.
Read the original article here
Texas voters approve constitutional amendment that requires US citizenship to vote in the state, and the immediate reaction seems to be a collective head-scratch. It’s a bit like someone announcing they’ve invented gravity – we all knew it already existed. The central question echoing through the responses is, what’s actually different now? The fact is, U.S. citizenship has always been a prerequisite for voting in Texas, and in the US as a whole. Federal and state laws have long mandated this.
So, the new constitutional amendment in Texas isn’t introducing a novel concept; it’s essentially reaffirming something that’s been the law of the land for ages. Some find this a bit bewildering, questioning the purpose of such an amendment. The sentiment is that it’s a colossal waste of time and resources, particularly when Texas faces genuine issues that need addressing. Imagine the state’s legislature tackling actual problems instead of re-stating existing laws. This is what many voters feel, a sense of “Why are we doing this?”
Now, while the amendment might seem like a non-event from a legal standpoint, some worry about its potential implications. The concern is that this could be a stepping stone towards making voting more difficult, by implementing stricter and potentially more expensive proof-of-citizenship requirements. There’s a fear that the amendment could be used to exclude certain groups, like women (through name changes) or transgender individuals, from exercising their right to vote. The apprehension is that this is less about security and more about voter suppression, using existing laws to put up new barriers.
From a political standpoint, many see this as an exercise in performative politics. It’s a chance for certain political groups to appear to be “solving” a problem, even if that problem doesn’t really exist. The act of legislating on a topic that’s already covered by federal law is viewed as a tactic to energize a specific political base, rather than a genuine attempt to improve the state. The cynical take is that it’s a way for politicians to grandstand, generating headlines and garnering support without actually accomplishing anything substantive.
The reactions also highlight the frustration with what some perceive as a focus on divisive issues over more pressing needs. Instead of addressing concerns like infrastructure, education, or healthcare, Texas, is apparently deciding to reiterate the requirement of U.S. citizenship to vote, something that was already the case. The tone suggests a disappointment that the state’s efforts are being channeled into what is seen as empty political gestures.
There’s a sense of bewilderment at the whole exercise. The question keeps popping up: why? Some are perplexed that this made it onto the ballot, as if the state is just now realizing that voting is a right reserved for citizens. It’s as if a state is just deciding that it should be against murder, something that has always been the law of the land, this amendment is just as pointless.
There’s a clear undercurrent of frustration with the priorities of the state’s political leadership, and the way they choose to use their time and resources. Rather than creating new, real changes, Texas is doing the obvious.
So, is anything actually changing? In a practical sense, probably not. The core requirement remains the same. But the amendment’s passage offers an opportunity to look at its potential impact. It will be interesting to watch how the state’s leadership implements this amendment, and to see if the concerns about voter suppression come to pass.