Fake Tocqueville, Fake Jefferson 2025

Many posts have discussed the fake Tocqueville quotation, "America is great, because America is good. If America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great." Tocqueville never wrote any such thing. The bogus line has been circulating for many years. There has been a good deal of work on its origin, but, certainly, it did not originate with Tocqueville.

As I leave Congress, I urge all of us to look for ways to cultivate more grace, love, and forgiveness in this world and serve others. We hope for a time of healing.

Alexis de Tocqueville said it so well. He said: “America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

I have served with so many good people and had the honor of representing the good people of eastern Washington. For that, I am grateful. I say thank you, may God bless you, and may God continue to bless the United States of America.

Speaker Mike Johnson started the 119th Congress by quoting a prayer that he attributed to Thomas Jefferson.  The quotation is fake.  Jefferson never wrote or uttered such a prayer. 

In speaker acceptance remarks, Johnson reads what he called a prayer by Thomas Jefferson. However, Monticello calls it "spurious" & unlikely it's from Jefferson: https://t.co/RNbBInod5P
Johnson has history of using fake quotes: https://t.co/w0iyOz9qf3 pic.twitter.com/0YfEVkPOpw

— Brian Kaylor (@BrianKaylor) January 3, 2025

In 2010, Frank Miele wrote:

On May 17, 1886, the prayer was printed in the Fitchburg (Mass.) Sentinel as a “Prayer for the Country set forth by Bishop HC Potter for use in the Diocese of New York.”

Sure enough, Potter was another Episcopalian bishop, full name Henry Codman Potter, who had a reputation as a writer and an interest in both social justice and politics. It is entirely likely that with Potter, we have found the true source of the “Jefferson Prayer,” some 81 years after its purported origin.

Here, finally, it is:

“Almighty God, who in the former times leddest our fathers forth into a wealthy place, and didst set their feet in a large room, give Thy grace, we humbly beseech Thee, to us their children, that we may always approve ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable industry, sound learning and pure manners. Defend our liberties, preserve our unity. Save us from violence, discord and confusion, from pride and arrogancy, and from every evil way. Fashion into one happy people the multitudes brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues. Endue with the spirit of wisdom those whom we intrust in Thy name with the authority of governance, to the end that there be peace at home, and that we keep our place among the nations of the earth. In the time of our prosperity, temper our self-confidence with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble suffer not our trust in Thee to fail. All which we ask for Jesus Christ’s sake. Amen.”

Blue Inequality

 From The New York Times:

It’s easy to blame the other side. And for many Democrats, it’s obvious that Republicans are thwarting progress toward a more equal society. But what happens when Republicans aren’t standing in the way? In many states — including California, New York and Illinois — Democrats control all the levers of power. They run the government. They write the laws. And as we explore in the video above, they often aren’t living up to their values. In key respects, many blue states are actually doing worse than red states. It is in the blue states where affordable housing is often hardest to find, there are some of the most acute disparities in education funding and economic inequality is increasing most quickly. Instead of asking, “What’s the matter with Kansas?” Democrats need to spend more time pondering, “What’s the matter with California?”

Goodbye, Faithless Electors

Syllabus: CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON
591 U. S. ____ (2020)
No. 19–465. Argued May 13, 2020—Decided July 6, 2020

Held: A State may enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee—and the state voters’  choice—for President. Pp. 8–18. 

(a) Article II, §1 gives the States the authority to appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” This Court has described that clause as  conveying the broadest power of determination” over who becomes an elector. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 27. And the power to appoint an elector (in any manner) includes power to condition his appointment, absent some other constitutional constraint. A State can require, for example, that an elector live in the State or qualify as a regular voter during the relevant time period. Or more substantively, a State can insist (as Ray allowed) that the elector pledge to cast his Electoral College ballot for his party’s presidential nominee, thus tracking the State’s popular vote. Or—so long as nothing else in the Constitution poses an obstacle—a State can add an associated condition of appointment: It can demand that the elector actually live up to his pledge, on pain of penalty. Which is to say that the State’s appointment power, barring some outside constraint, enables the enforcement of a pledge like Washington’s.

Nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits States from taking away presidential electors’ voting discretion as Washington does. Article II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint electors, and the Twelfth Amendment only sets out the electors’ voting procedures. And while two contemporaneous State Constitutions incorporated language calling for the exercise of elector discretion, no language of that kind made it into the Federal Constitution. Contrary to the Electors’ argument, Article II’s use of the term “electors” and the Twelfth Amendment’s requirement that the electors “vote,” and that they do so “by ballot,” do not establish that electors must have discretion. The Electors and their amici object that the Framers using those words expected the Electors’ votes to reflect their own judgments. But even assuming that outlook was widely shared, it would not be enough. Whether by choice or accident, the Framers did not reduce their thoughts about electors’ discretion to the printed page. Pp. 8–13.

(b) “Long settled and established practice” may have “great weight in a proper interpretation of constitutional provisions.” The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U. S. 655, 689. The Electors make an appeal to that kind of practice in asserting their right to independence, but “our whole experience as a Nation” points in the opposite direction. NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U. S. 513, 557. From the first elections under the Constitution, States sent electors to the College to vote for pre-selected candidates, rather than to use their own judgment. The electors rapidly settled into that non-discretionary role. See Ray, 343 U. S., at 228–229. Ratified at the start of the 19th century, the Twelfth Amendment both acknowledged and facilitated the Electoral College’s emergence as a mechanism not for deliberation but for party-line voting. Courts and commentators throughout that century recognized the presidential electors as merely acting on other people’s preferences.  And state election laws evolved to reinforce that development, ensuring that a State’s electors would vote the same way as its citizens. Washington’s law is only another in the same vein. It reflects a longstanding tradition in which electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the State’s voters have chosen. Pp. 13– 17. 193 Wash. 2d 380, 441 P. 3d 807, affirmed.

 KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which GORSUCH, J., joined as to Part II.

Homeless

A release from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority:

In a presentation to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority released the results of the 2019 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count, which showed 58,936 people in Los Angeles County experiencing homelessness, representing a 12% rise from last year’s point-in-time count of 52,765. The city of Los Angeles saw a 16% rise to 36,300.

Two years into the 10-year investments from Measure H, LA County’s homeless services system has doubled the number of people moving from homelessness into housing over the course of each year, and tripled prevention, outreach, and engagement.

The homeless crisis response system helped 21,631 people move into permanent housing over the course of last year—40 percent of last year’s Count number, and a number that would end homelessness in most American cities and even states. Ninety-two percent of the people placed in permanent housing through our system in 2016 and 2017 stayed housed through the end of 2018 and did not return to homelessness.

Yet as thousands of people were permanently housed, thousands more fell into homelessness due to economic forces and the interlocking systems of foster care, mental health, criminal justice, and the housing market, outpacing the results.
...
This year’s Count revealed that 23% of the unsheltered people experiencing homelessness—more than 9,200 people—were homeless for the first time last year. The majority (53%) cited economic hardship as the cause.

The Count revealed that widely coordinated efforts to assist veterans had resulted in a small decrease in that population (from 3,886 to 3,874 ), a positive development given the overall rise. And Black/African-American people, who constitute 8.3% of the overall county population, continue to be overrepresented among people experiencing homelessness at 33%—though that figure has decreased slightly from its 2018 level of 35%.

Jill Cowan at NYT:

In Alameda County, the number of homeless residents jumped 43 percent over the past two years. In Orange County, that number was 42 percent. Kern County volunteers surveying the region’s homeless population found a 50 percent increase over 2018. San Francisco notched a 17 percent increase since 2017.

Madeline Holcombe at CNN:

Nationally, homelessness has been trending downward over the last decade, according to the National Alliance to End Homelessness. But this year's results, so far, offer a mixed bag.

For example, Seattle and King County, Washington, saw a decrease in homelessness for the first time in seven years with an 8% drop, according to a report by the organization All Home.

New York City said the number of unsheltered people -- those sleeping on the street, and in parks, subways and other public places -- declined by 2% from last year. In Indianapolis, the total number of people experiencing homelessness is down 7%, according to Indiana University's Public Policy Institute.

Meanwhile, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, said the number of people living on the street, in shelters and in transitional housing climbed 8%, and Austin, Texas, reported a 5% increase in the total number of people experiencing homelessness, according to Ending Community Homelessness Coalition.

Affirmative Action in Washington State

Scott Jaschik at Insider Higher Ed:

Twenty years ago, Washington State voters put in place the ban [consideration of race in admissions] that the Legislature is now lifting. In Washington State, the Legislature has the power to repeal such referenda; in some other states with bans, the state's voters would need to repeal them. But just as voters once decided the issue, they could do so again. Already critics of affirmative action are organizing a campaign to restore the ban. And campus Republican groups are organizing events to oppose the legislative action to restore the consideration of race in admissions.

A petition seeking to keep the ban on affirmative action says, "I-1000 [the measure passed by the Legislature] can be summed up in one sentence: it would abolish the standard of equality for all, regardless of race, as required by I-200, and replace it with a system that uses different rules for people of different races."

The developments in Washington State come at a time when a lawsuit against Harvard University over affirmative action -- if appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court as expected -- could have an impact on colleges nationwide. Washington State shows that the impact varies in part based on state populations and the competitiveness of public colleges and universities.

More on Public Opinion, Federalism, and Marijuana

Previous posts have examined federalism issues in marijuana control. Consistent with a recent YouGov poll, Gallup finds a preference against federal action in states that have loosened restrictions:

Sixty-four percent of Americans are against the federal government's taking steps to enforce federal anti-marijuana laws in states where marijuana is legal. Americans who personally believe that marijuana should be legal overwhelmingly say the federal government should not get involved at the state level, along with four in 10 of those who are opposed to legalized marijuana. [emphasis  added]

The issue of what the federal government should do in these situations is particularly relevant, given recently passed initiatives in Washington and Colorado that legalized possession of small amounts of marijuana. These state-level laws are at odds with the federal Controlled Substances Act that makes marijuana use illegal. Although all of the precise specifications of the new law in Washington have not yet been determined, the fact that a number of pot smokers gathered near the Space Needle in Seattle last week to publicly celebrate their state's new law underscored this potential conflict between what could be legal under new state laws while remaining illegal at the federal level.

The results from the Nov. 26-29 USA Today/Gallup poll indicate that the average American sides with the states in these instances of conflict.

New Turnout Numbers

Our chapter on political participation discusses voter turnout. There are now new data on the subject, according to a release from the Census Bureau:

Hispanics made up 7 percent of voters in the 2010 congressional election, the highest percentage for a nonpresidential election since the U.S. Census Bureau began collecting this information in 1974. Hispanics comprised 6 percent of voters in 2006.

Blacks also increased their share of the electorate, going from 11 percent in 2006 to 12 percent in 2010 (a figure not statistically different from the record high in 1998).

These numbers come from Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2010, a set of tables that compares voting and registration patterns by demographic, social and geographic characteristics. They also include state figures on voting and registration.

“These statistics show that the nation's electorate is becoming increasingly diverse,” said Tiffany Julian, of the Census Bureau's Education and Social Stratification Branch. “The electorate looks much different than when we first started collecting these data 37 years ago.”

The Asian share of the electorate in 2010 was not statistically different than the share in 2006 (2.5 percent and 2.2 percent, respectively). Non-Hispanic white voters decreased from 80.4 percent of the electorate in 2006 to 77.5 percent in 2010, a decline of 2.9 percentage points.

Other highlights from the tables:

• Maine and Washington experienced voter turnout greater than 55 percent. Fewer than 40 percent of citizens in Texas reported voting.
• The most common reason people did not vote was they were too busy (27 percent). Another 16 percent felt that their vote would not make a difference.
• Homeowners were more likely to register and vote than renters; 74 percent of homeowners were registered to vote and 68 percent actually voted; 61 percent of renters were registered and 52 percent voted.
• People with at least some college education made up 68 percent of voters. Individuals without a high school diploma comprised 6 percent of voters.
• Veterans were more likely to vote (57 percent) than nonveterans (44 percent).
• People living in families who earned $100,000 or more were more than twice as likely to vote as those who lived with families earning less than $20,000 (61 percent and 30 percent, respectively).

Two states with lower turnout are Tennessee and West Virginia.

Gannett reports:

Census bureau surveys dating back to 1990 show Tennessee has consistently ranked lower than most states in congressional election turnout. It has numbered among the bottom 15 in all but the 2002 election.

"Historically the southern states have had a lower turnout," said Mark Byrnes, a political science professor at Middle Tennessee State University. "Part of it's tied to education. We know that education is correlated to the likelihood to vote, and we have a low percentage of college-educated people."

Nationally, college-educated people made up 68 percent of voters in 2010, according to census figures. People without a high-school diploma accounted for 6 percent of voters.

Nationwide and in Tennessee, turnout was higher among older Americans than among young people.

About 16 percent of citizens between 18 and 24 voted in Tennessee, compared to 21 percent nationwide. Sixty-three percent of Tennesseans between 65 and 74 showed up at the polls -- consistent with national data.

Byrnes said high turnout among older voters isn't surprising.

"Those are by and large retired people who have a great interest in making sure that the government programs that serve them stay healthy," he said. "They have plenty of time to vote and to keep up with the issues, and if you add time to interest, you're likely to get voting."

WVNS-TV reports:

Marybeth Beller, associated professor and chair of the Department of Political Science at Marshall University, said the low turnout rates for young people are not surprising.

“Since we passed the amendment to the Constitution lowering the voting age to 18, we’ve seen a drop off in that cohort,” Beller said.

“Unless we have campaign issues that connect to people in that age group, they don’t tune in.”

In the past couple of years, much of the political debate nationwide has been on health care and health insurance, but that issue is not a priority for young people, Beller said. A discussion of college tuition or of jobs could bring more younger voters to the polls, she said.

Beller said she does not expect next week’s election for governor to bring out many younger voters.

“There’s very little about the Tomblin-Maloney campaign that has to do with issues young people deal with,” she said.