“The Electoral College was invented to account for population disparity between states, and it’s what the Founding Fathers intended.”

This is an argument you see online a lot. It’s also mostly false. People tend to look at history, try to represent the views of historical groups of people as monolithic, and often ignore historical context and differences in the world and society that contributed to decisions made in the past. It is very easy to create these quips that seem true on the surface, especially to anyone who has a moderate knowledge of the relevant history, but typically, when you dig into the details of almost any political argument that relies on history, you’ll find that a lot of modern narrative is being applied.

Let’s look at the Electoral College, for example. Firstly, the Electoral College today does not work the same as when the United States was first founded. In 1796, your ballot depended heavily on where you lived. In some states, your state government selected the electors. In others, you voted for the president by direct popular vote. In some, you elected electors without any mention of the presidential candidate. In these states you would have been voting directly for an elector, someone from your local region whom you trusted to vote for your preferred candidate, or deliberate with others to make an informed decision. In the 1700s, most people would not have known much about politicians from other states. They may have heard about them, but would likely not even be aware of their reputation or policy positions. Many people may not have even known who the representatives from their own state were, just their local representative! So a system like the Electoral College became a natural solution to this problem. People could elect someone they trusted and knew locally, send them to meet with other electors from their state, and trust them to make an informed decision on who should be president. But this system only remained for a few elections. It wouldn’t be long until every ballot simply allowed you to vote for “the electors for [President] and [Vice President]”.

This is how we get the system we have today, designed to solve a problem that no longer exists, and not even working in the way it was originally designed.

But even the argument I’ve presented here has a lot of narrative. This wasn’t just a solution to logistical issues of electing the president. In fact, several founding fathers wanted a national direct election of the president by popular vote! But the political reality at the time was that they needed broad support from the states to ratify the Constitution, and direct election of the president sidelined many states with small populations.

It would be easy for Virginia, for example, to use its large population at the time to maintain longstanding control of the presidency. So politically, there was in fact a desire to have a compromising system in which smaller states would have a disproportionately larger say in the election of the president. But the southern states also had concerns. In direct elections, enslaved people could not vote, but with the Electoral College they could be counted towards the number of electors and benefit slaveholding states.

But it is not true that the Electoral College was designed to be a permanent solution, lasting to the end of time, agreed upon by all as the perfect way to elect the president. It was a compromise that, indeed, no one was fully satisfied with, even at the time of ratification. It was supported by different groups for different reasons, and solved enough practical issues that it became popular, and most importantly it allowed individual states to decide how they would manage their elections. Any argument that frames the Electoral College in absolutist historical terms is misleading at best.

Tax Collection in the Roman Empire

Let’s look at another example: tax collection in the Roman Empire. This is a less common argument, but you will occasionally hear someone argue that all tax collection is inherently sinful, pointing to how often tax collectors appear in the Bible as an example of essentially the “morally lowest common denominator” in many stories. For example, “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?” and “If he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” The Bible does in fact refer to tax collectors in this way very often. There are also stories of Jesus explaining in essence that “even tax collectors can be forgiven.”

Any argument based around this, though, is inherently misleading due to historical context. The original wording for most modern English translations of “tax collector” in the Bible comes from the Greek word telōnēs, referring to workers in the Roman publicani system, or “tax farmers.”

These individuals were not like modern IRS agents. They were more comparable to the kind of private debt collector who calls and harasses debtors, and perhaps in some cases, they were comparable to criminal loan sharks who use violence to extract payment. The Romans used a tax farming system in which the right to collect certain taxes was auctioned off to private contractors, who would pay the Roman government up front and then be allowed to extract taxes from the local populace to enhance their own wealth. Imagine if, instead of filing your own taxes every year, a man simply showed up at your door demanding that you pay him taxes, showing you a contract he purchased from the government allowing him to collect money directly from you. This system was often corrupt, and while these tax collectors were subject to Roman laws, in occupied areas like biblical Judea their corrupt and criminal behavior was often overlooked.

This is all to say that trying to apply these sorts of historical arguments to modern institutions often falls flat. Most people today simply do not live or experience the same context under which many historical events occurred, and the events of the past often do not apply so cleanly to modern day politics. While we can use the past as a basis to inform our beliefs in the present, we need to remember that we are living in a vastly different world than even existed 40 years ago, let alone 250 years ago, or 2000 years ago.

These are just two examples, but once you start looking for this pattern, you’ll find it everywhere. Almost any time someone reaches into history to settle a modern argument with a clean, quotable line, there’s a good chance the reality was messier, more contested, and more tied to its own time than the argument lets on. It doesn’t mean history has nothing to tell us, it means the work of actually understanding it is harder than a single sentence can capture. The next time you see one of these arguments, whether it’s about the Founding Fathers, a Bible verse, an ancient philosopher, or anything else, it’s worth pausing to ask what’s being left out. More often than not, the answer is “quite a lot.”

Subscribe now

The reality is that these are very complex and interconnected problems. Economists estimate that there is a housing shortage of 3.3-5.5 million homes, homes that must be built for housing prices to come down. This is a national issue that impacts us all locally. If we don’t build enough housing units, housing prices will continue to rise, but if we build more locally, it will impact traffic and our community. But the reality is that this same discussion is being had in every community in the country, and the vast majority of city councils are choosing to build far fewer homes than needed.

Suffolk City Council, on the other hand, has taken actions that are consistent with the economic research on housing affordability. Research by Edward L. Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko from the Wharton School of Economics found that low-density zoning and other land-use controls restricting the development of housing were the primary drivers of increased housing costs.

Some argue that an influx of high-earning workers increases home prices in a region and that zoning changes will not stop price increases, but in “Zoning and affordability: A reply to Rodríguez-Pose and Storper”, they argue very strongly against this idea. One quote from that article summarizes the issue perfectly:

“If high earners drive prices, why do Cadillac Escalades cost about the same in San Jose and Kansas City, while San Jose’s median home is seven times more expensive than its Kansas City counterpart?”

The authors’ answer is simple. Escalades are easy to build, and if there aren’t enough of them you can ship more of them in. Housing construction is heavily restricted by zoning, and if there isn’t enough housing, the only option is for prices to go up.

To be clear, building housing in Suffolk is necessary. Suffolk and Hampton Roads are areas experiencing a large influx of high-paying jobs. There is nothing that Suffolk City Council can do to prevent companies in Newport News and Norfolk from hiring software engineers or other high-salary workers. Nor can the city council stop those workers from considering purchasing a home in North Suffolk. But the City Council can choose to build more housing and lessen the impact of increased demand by high-salaried workers.

So if one assumes that more housing supply is necessary to counter rising costs, the question should not be “should we build more housing”, but “how can we build housing without causing other problems?” This is where I think the City Council is really excelling. There are ongoing plans to expand existing schools and build new schools. Bridge Road is being expanded and the intersections are being reworked for better traffic flow and safety, alongside many other major traffic improvements throughout the entire city. There are studies to bring an Amtrak station back to the city. A new fire station has been built to support Northern Suffolk not just for Fire & EMS services, but also as a polling site for elections. New mixed-use developments are shortening the distances people need to travel to shop and eat, helping to reduce the number of people driving on major roadways.

The next challenge to ensure affordability is region-wide. Prices still increase in Suffolk because we are not just supporting growth for a single city, people moving into North Suffolk work all over Hampton Roads, and the other constituent cities of the region seem to have fallen much further behind on housing development than Suffolk has. And people who are priced out of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake are moving into Suffolk. There is a lot of work to do, and for any effort to be truly successful at reducing prices it needs to be a region-wide initiative.

I’ve lived in Suffolk since I was 12, for almost 20 years now. I have family roots in Downtown Suffolk going back to my great-grandparents. Suffolk today is a lot different than when I was a kid, but Suffolk when I was a kid was also a lot different than in their time. The reality is that cities change over time, and resistance to that change will only lead to higher prices and people who live here eventually being priced out and displaced, just as happened in Virginia Beach and Chesapeake when growth skyrocketed and was not met with appropriate housing development.

Suffolk City Council isn’t perfect, and no one should expect them to be when navigating problems this complex. But they deserve credit for making the hard, often unpopular choice to build, and for pairing that growth with real investments in schools, roads, and public services. The alternative isn’t a Suffolk that stays the same forever; it’s a Suffolk that becomes unaffordable for the people who already call it home. I’d rather live in a city that’s growing thoughtfully than one that’s pricing out its own residents by refusing to grow at all.

At this point, it seems clear that Donald Trump is inching toward invoking the Insurrection Act, a move that could upend democratic norms in the United States. Blue states with Democratic governors remain the last meaningful check on his power when all three branches of government are kneeling to his command. In just over a month, Virginia could become the next target on his list.

So far, Virginia has avoided the mass ICE raids that have terrorized other states. We’ve also been spared Trump’s strategic deployment of the National Guard, a tactic he uses to provoke unrest and then justify an even heavier federal response. The pattern is clear: he sends in troops, peaceful demonstrators are tear-gassed, the resulting chaos is used as proof that “more” military intervention is needed. It is a calculated cycle designed to create the appearance of disorder and to justify further repression.

When Abigail Spanberger wins, perhaps even before she takes office, we should expect these same tactics to intensify here. A new Democratic governor would represent one of the most significant challenges to Trump’s authority since his return to power. It would be unsurprising if he contested the results outright. If Spanberger wins by eight to ten points, as current polls suggest, it’s easy to imagine Trump on television calling it fraud: “Nobody ever saw a swing from red to blue like that.”

Virginia and Virginians must be ready. The incoming administration needs a clear plan to respond to any unlawful federal use of force within the state. There must be strong lines of communication between state and local governments, and a readiness to protect civil rights and the rule of law. The strength of Virginia’s institutions, and the resolve of those who lead them, will determine whether our Commonwealth becomes the next bulwark of democracy in the United States.

Thank you to Ian Hutchinson for providing the header image to this article for free under the Unsplash license. https://unsplash.com/photos/yellow-truck-parked-near-bare-trees-during-daytime-GWG6IxeDwYw

Before we get into the data there’s a few things to clarify - trying to read election performance based on past lean of the districts is somewhat difficult. VPAP calculates their lean index for the House of Delegates based on the 2021 Gubernatorial results and the 2024 Presidential results. This results in a few estimates that are very obviously incorrect - for example there are several districts that are listed as “leans dem” that actually have the dem candidate running unopposed for HOD. Another obvious mistake to make in predicting what the data means is assuming that every single person is voting down ballot for the same party. That’s a flaw I’m going to have in my data as well. Of course, in a district that voted 95% for an unopposed democratic HOD delegate, a smaller percent may vote for the democratic governor candidate.

Let’s first look at VPAP’s lean index and compare it to the 2023 House of Delegates election results.

There’s a few interesting things here. “Strong Democratic” district’s median vote split in 2023 was 78% of votes going to Dems, while “Strong Republican” districts still contributed 26% of their votes to Dems. So in “Strong Republican” districts, they contribute somewhat more of their votes towards the opposite party than in “Strong Democratic” districts.

That split disappears on the “Lean” districts though, which are 56% and 43% voting in favor of the Dems. And the competitive districts slightly disfavored the Dems at 49%.

Again though, this is reading the tea leaves. It’s difficult to predict exactly what voters will do in 2025, and looking at data on what voters did from 2021, 2023, or 2024 isn’t necessarily a great predictor of what voters will do in the future. That being said, Spanberger is polling quite a lot higher than McAuliffe was, so using 2023 data probably gives a better idea than 2021 data.

So lets look just at the ballots cast using the VPAP index data. It shows that Dems are slightly behind in early voter turnout. This is where news articles saying that there is an early lead for republicans are coming from.

However let’s break down this data in a very detailed way. For each district, we will look at the 2023 vote split percentage and calculate an estimated number of votes for each party by multiplying the number of ballots cast so far by the percentage of votes going to either party. Then, we can use the sum of votes by district to get a more accurate idea of how the votes may actually look.

Using historical data to estimate the vote split for each district, this allows us to see that there is an estimated 34310 votes for Dems, and 31097 votes for Republicans, an ~2.45% lean in favor of the Dems. But this data is still not very reliable. You’ll note that only 1% of ballots have been cast as of 09/23/2025. Even if this estimate was 100% accurate today, there are many reasons that the first week or so of early voting may be skewed one way or the other. For one, early voting from M-F is going to be geared more heavily towards people who are retired or who do not work M-F, 9-5 jobs. So using the voting data of the general population to make estimates about what is happening with only a very tiny fraction of the total votes in so far is never going to generate an accurate result. So in general, you should be wary of any person or news outlet who is telling you that that the early ballot info so far has any real meaning or indication of what is going on with the election.

Subscribe now

So why has it taken nearly 6 months to stop this unlawful action? This was a blatantly illegal policy impacting thousands of people and enabling a gross violation of the law by the President in a way that is extremely ripe for abuse against potentially millions of people living in the United States. The judiciary must be reformed to allow for swift action against such blatant violations of the law and of the U.S. Constitution as we see today. When an issue involving the federal government is before any federal court, and that issue addresses urgent questions of legality and constitutionality of federal actions against individuals living within the United States, there should be a way to fast-track these issues directly to appeals courts. Even earlier this year, when hearing the case on nationwide injunctions over the birthright citizenship case, a few conservative members of the Court, even Clarence Thomas, made comments implying that they do not think Trump’s order is constitutional. Brett Kavanaugh even noted that he wished they were simply looking at that case on the merits rather than discussing the legality of the injunction. We still have not had a resolution in that case!

The Supreme Court ruled that nationwide injunctions are not legal and not a power granted to federal courts by Congress. When Democrats take back the presidency and Congress, we can re-establish nationwide injunctions, perhaps in a more limited way so that they only apply to urgent matters such as questions impacting large groups of individuals or questions of core constitutional rights and powers.

One of my very long-standing issues with many “old guard” Democrats is their willingness to expand the power of the executive branch over the years with no regard for how it can be used by bad actors. Joe Biden’s administration was hampered heavily by nationwide injunctions, and I fear that a future Dem majority may not want to bring them back. I think there are many cases where they should be limited, but broadly speaking there should be a judicial process to stop a president who does not care about the law and takes swift action to abuse it as much as possible before he can be stopped, even if that means increased difficulty for future presidents. To quote Elrond: Cast it into the fire, destroy it!

The Court rejected this reasoning, finding that because race was the determining factor in whether a marriage was legal, the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that denying a fundamental right on the arbitrary basis of race violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Obergefell v. Hodges is a closely related ruling, except the question was discrimination based on sex rather than race. In fact, the Court in Obergefell noted that it would be impossible to uphold same-sex marriage bans without disregarding Loving v. Virginia entirely. Any ruling overturning Obergefell would therefore put Loving itself at risk.

The dissents in Obergefell are worth examining. There are four, one from each dissenting justice, each advancing different arguments. Justice Clarence Thomas disputes the concept of substantive due process, the same legal principle applied in Loving v. Virginia. Under his reasoning, it could be constitutionally permissible for a state to ban his own interracial marriage.

Justice Samuel Alito, in his dissent, argues that the Due Process Clause should protect only those rights “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history.” Was interracial marriage “deeply rooted” in 1967, when Loving was decided? Given the Court’s recent fixation on “historical balancing,” it’s difficult to imagine them objectively concluding that Loving is constitutional under such logic.

Any decision that narrows Obergefell inevitably jeopardizes Loving as well. For that reason, the Supreme Court should deny certiorari in Kim Davis’s request to overturn Obergefell.

Article Photo By Ted Eytan - https://www.flickr.com/photos/taedc/18588276403/, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=41256464

Today is Good Friday, according to the Catholic church it’s tradition it’s 1992 years since Jesus was Crucified, although that is generally considered to be slightly off.1

According to the Bible, Jesus was brought before Pontius Pilate by a public mob of elders and priests, demanding that he be tried for the accusations against him.

“When morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people conferred together against Jesus in order to bring about his death. They bound him, led him away, and handed him over to Pilate the governor.” (Mathew 27 NSRVUE)

Pilate was the Governor, and in this case he also acts in the role of Judge. He questioned Jesus on the charges laid against him by the mob.

“Now Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” Jesus said, “You say so.” ¹² But when he was accused by the chief priests and elders, he did not answer. ¹³ Then Pilate said to him, “Do you not hear how many accusations they make against you?” ¹⁴ But he gave him no answer, not even to a single charge, so that the governor was greatly amazed.” (Mathew 27 NSRVUE)

Pilate ultimately found that there was no evidence that Jesus was guilty of a crime. But Jesus was sentenced to death anyway, because ravenous political and religious leaders in Judea had stormed up a mob of hate and of people who believed that he was guilty despite no evidence.

“Pilate asked him, “What is truth?”After he had said this, he went out to the Jews again and told them, “I find no case against him” (John 18 NSRVUE)

“Pilate then called together the chief priests, the leaders, and the people ¹⁴ and said to them, “You brought me this man as one who was inciting the people, and here I have examined him in your presence and have not found this man guilty of any of your charges against him. ¹⁵ Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us. Indeed, he has done nothing to deserve death. … Then they all shouted out together, “Away with this fellow! Release Barabbas for us!” … ²⁰ Pilate, wanting to release Jesus, addressed them again, ²¹ but they kept shouting, “Crucify, crucify him!” ²² A third time he said to them, “Why, what evil has he done? I have found in him no ground for the sentence of death; I will therefore have him flogged and then release him.” ²³ But they kept urgently demanding with loud shouts that he should be crucified, and their voices prevailed. ²⁴ So Pilate gave his verdict that their demand should be granted.” (Luke 23)

I think there are very few people in the world who do not know what happens next in this story. Jesus is imprisoned and tortured. He is forced to drag the instrument of his death across the city, as the people who have been riled up by their leaders celebrate and take joy in his pain in suffering, while a small few attempt to help him. By the end of the day, Jesus is nailed to a cross (Most Roman crucifixions only had the victims tied to the cross), and he is left to languish until he dies of suffocation.

Mark Twain said that history doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes. I think this story rhymes a lot with what is happening today in the United States. There are many people in the United States today who are being picked up off the street by ICE agents, and sent to foreign prisons without access to lawyers or trials. When these cases do eventually come up in US courts, Judges are largely finding that there is no evidence that these people committed any crime. But our leaders go on television and call these people criminals and terrorists, and beg the American public to support their actions of defying legal proceedings. The supreme court ruled 9-0 that the Trump administration must facilitate the release of Kilmar Abregio Garcia, and just this week we learned from Senator Chris Van Hollen’s discussion with the Vice President of El Salvador that the Trump administration is not only failing to facilitate his release - the only reason he is still being held is because the Trump administration is still paying for him to be held. Let’s be clear though - this is the worst and most violent prison in the western hemisphere. It’s notorious for mistreatment and torture of it’s inmates. Thankfully, we have learned that Kilmar is in fact alive and accounted for in El Salvador.

That being said, maybe they do not want him to be alive. These days, I’m seeing more and more frequently the sentiment that anyone accused of being a terrorist or a criminal by this administration should be sent to this prison without a trial, without any evidence of guilt. And this week I’ve started seeing the conservative mob on social media stating that they actually hope that they are killing everyone who arrives in these prisons.

The people who support this administration often claim to be Christians. I really wonder how they can consider themselves Christians when they seemingly hold the exact same stance that was used by the mob that had Jesus crucified in spite of the ruling of the presiding legal official.

Subscribe now

Recently, Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies act to justify indefinitely imprisoning lawful US residents in an extremely cruel and brutal prison in El Salvador. One such resident, Jerce Reyes, was imprisoned simply for having a tattoo with the logo of a soccer team, Real Madrid, and for posting photos on Facebook with “Devil Horns” often seen in use by rock and metal musicians.

The Trump administration claims that this information - along with Jerce Reyes’ ethnic and national heritage - is enough to imprison him in a hellish gulag without any access to lawyers or due process of the law.

I grew up hearing about how America fought against the Nazis, who imprisoned and killed Jews based on a conspiracy theory that people of the Jewish ethnic background conspired to destroy Germany. I was told this could never happen in the United States because we have a right to a trial, a right to a lawyer, and equal rights for all people within the borders of the United States of America. That our system will always allowed the truth to be revealed and ensure that people receive fair and equal treatment under the law. Today that has been revealed to be a lie.

Adolf Hitler’s dismantling of Jewish rights in Nazi Germany was not done overnight. It was a steady process of spreading lies and propaganda until the population was willing to accept that some people were simply not deserving of the rights afforded to others. They were described as poisoning the blood of the Nation, as being inhuman, rats, roaches. They were blamed for all of society’s problems and economic woes. They were blamed for the deaths of children, and in conspiracy theories even accused of engaging in various ritual sacrifices. They were accused of being communists who were plotting to overthrow the state.

These are all accusations thrown against the Jews by the Nazis in Germany. They are also the same accusations thrown against immigrants to the United States by the President and the faction of White Supremacists within his government led by people like Stephen Miller.

During the first Trump Presidency it became clear that Donald Trump would do whatever the people around him told him to do. If he got frustrated with them he would fire them, but he would generally follow the advice of whatever advisors replaced them. The Nazis operating within the United States of America learned this, and have surrounded Donald Trump. People like Stephen Miller, Curtis Yarvin, and Matt Walsh are now running this government and turning this country into everything it once fought against.

In Band of Brothers there is a scene towards the end of the series where the US soldiers who have discovered one of the concentration camps confront the German civilians living nearby, who went about their daily lives as normal as if atrocities were not being committed around them daily. I think it’s a question many of us have been asked to ponder in high school or college essays. Today, it’s become so easy to see how it happened in Nazi Germany, and how close we are to having it happen here if normal people do not stand up against injustice.

Subscribe now

Dear Representative Kiggans,

I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the unconstitutional actions taken by President Donald Trump to override legislative authority. Specifically, I would like to understand what actions you are currently taking—or plan to take—to prevent such overreach and uphold the role of Congress in our government.

President Trump has made unlawful budget cuts and program reductions that were allocated and mandated by Congress. These actions have had an immediate and harmful impact on the residents of Hampton Roads. Families are losing jobs, children with special needs are losing critical support, and essential government services are being disrupted.

I recently read about a neighbor who works at NASA. He was recently promoted into a new role after years of diligence and hard work. However, due to his probationary status in the new role, he has now been informed that he will likely be laid off as a direct result of the Trump administration’s actions. Instead of being rewarded for his hard work, he is facing job loss due to unlawful executive overreach. He is not alone. This story is shared by thousands of Americans across Virginia.

If you do not intend to take action to oppose these violations of congressional authority, I must ask: What do you see as your role and responsibility in Congress if the President is allowed to ignore budgets and legislation passed by the legislature? Why should Congress exist at all if its mandates can be disregarded without consequence?

I urge you to take a stand in defense of the Constitution and the legislative branch’s authority. I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Tristan Pressley

Subscribe now

Note: Image for this post provided for free by Joel Moysuh under the Unsplash License

I started writing this article yesterday after the White House published a new executive order, stating that the only accepted interpretations of the law in the executive branch will be those which are determined by the President of the United States or the United States Attorney General. However this afternoon, the White House posted, to all of its official social media pages, an image depicting Donald Trump wearing a crown with the text “Long Live the King”, as he seeks to override New York and New York City law to end congestion pricing in the city. That hasn’t actually appreciably changed the content of this article given that it’s fairly consistent with the point I’m going to make - that Donald Trump seeks to upend the rule of law and basic fundamental concepts of Democracy in the United States.

In Donald Trump’s executive order, “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies”
Section 7 declares: “The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties. No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General.”

This is a clear cut instruction to all employees of the federal government that they are not to follow the instructions of the Supreme Court of the United States unless directly instructed to do so by the President or Attorney General. This instruction is, in essence, an instruction to all employees of the executive branch that they are to entirely disregard the United States Constitution and simply do whatever the President tells them to do, regardless of regulation passed by Congress or any ruling in any court.

Donald Trump told us that he will be a dictator on day 1. It seems that this is a campaign promise he has actually kept. He has assaulted American institutions on all fronts, he conspired to create forged documents certifying an election win in 2020. He demanded that the Governor of Georgia rig the election in his favor. He sent a mob to the capital and told them to “Fight like hell”, as they called for the murder of Vice President Mike Pence to stop certification of the election in 2020. Now re-elected, Donald Trump is actively destroying all of the institutions designed to prevent him from successfully achieving what attempted in 2020.

Joe Biden left the Presidency with a clear message to the American people. “There are no kings in America.” Donald Trump is now coming in with a new one, “I am the King, Long Live the King.” If anything has become clear over the last 16 years of American politics it’s this: Our system of checks and balances, which exists to ensure that we have no tyrannical rulers in this country, only works when everyone plays by the rules. 16 years of Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump gaming the system to control all 3 branches of government have resulted in a situation where Donald Trump can call himself King while 271 republicans in congress do absolutely nothing about it

.

Subscribe now

If you live in Virginia, and especially if you have spent time around DC, you’ve probably seen one of these license plates before. Foreign diplomats in the U.S. receive special license plates, symbolizing their immunity under international law. This immunity, common worldwide, exempts them from U.S. jurisdiction unless their home country waives it.

People who have entered the US illegally are still subject to US law. An illegal immigrant who commits a crime in the US can be tried, convicted, imprisoned, and then deported after serving their sentence. Legal aliens, that is - non immigrants in the US on a Visa, and immigrants such as permanent residents, refugees, asylees, etc. are also all subject to US law. If you are a foreigner visiting this country you cannot simply come here and commit crimes and then claim that you are somehow immune to US jurisdiction. Despite this, that is exactly what Donald Trump seems to have declared in his executive order seeking to eliminate birthright citizenship, which states that certain classes of alien are subject to US jurisdiction and do not receive citizenship. The 14th amendment states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” I think this is pretty clear. All people born within the borders of the US, who do not owe some sort of allegiance to a home country (e.g. the children of foreign diplomats, soldiers, and officials) are conferred citizenship at birth.

Let’s be clear - Donald Trump knows that the US can punish aliens for any crimes committed in the US. His recent executive order requires the US government to seek the death penalty in all qualifying crimes committed by people who reside in the US illegally. This attempt to end birthright citizenship by claiming that aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction seems farcical at best. Even with the current makeup of the Supreme Court, I can’t really foresee any way that the Trump admin will be able to convince them to overturn United States v. Wong Kim Ark, decided nearly 130 years ago, a case in which the plaintiff gained citizenship in nearly the exact same scenario that Donald Trump seeks to prevent.

Concerns About Definitions

"Artificial intelligence" means a set of technologies that enables machines to perform tasks under varying and unpredictable circumstances that typically require human oversight or intelligence, or that can learn from experience and improve performance when exposed to data sets.

This definition encompasses a wide array of software not typically considered "artificial intelligence." Virtually any software that analyzes data could fall under this definition, as it includes "machines performing tasks under varying and unpredictable circumstances that typically require human oversight or intelligence." This broad phrasing essentially describes almost all software ever written.

For instance, all software is ideally developed to handle a wide range of varying and unpredictable circumstances. If you purchase an item from an e-commerce store, does the store's software handle the case where you attempt to order -1 items? Such an edge case—an attempt to purchase a negative quantity—could certainly be considered unpredictable, and the quantities vary. Without computers, such orders would require manual human oversight. Should software that handles this scenario by simply checking for positive values count as AI?

"...or that can learn from experience and improve performance when exposed to data sets."

This part of the definition aligns more closely with what is generally understood to be "AI." Artificial intelligence typically refers to a subset of software known as "machine learning." This involves systems trained on historical data to develop a mathematical model for producing outcomes based on inputs, rather than systems explicitly coded to produce specific outputs for given inputs.

The distinction between AI and traditional machine learning often lies in the complexity of the algorithms and models used. For example, software employing Bayes’ theorem to predict a flower type based on color, length, and shape would not generally be considered AI. However, software capable of analyzing a photograph of a flower, extracting its features, and then predicting its type could reasonably be classified as AI.

A more precise definition might replace the "or" in the original definition with "and," but even this might not narrow the scope sufficiently.

Later in the bill, the following terms are defined:

"Foundation model" means a machine learning model that (i) is trained on broad data at scale, (ii) is designed for generality of output, and (iii) can be adapted to a wide range of distinctive tasks.

"Generative artificial intelligence" means artificial intelligence based on a foundation model that is capable of and used to produce synthetic digital content, including audio, images, text, and videos.

This is a much better definition. It focuses on key characteristics that distinguish AI from typical deterministic software. Adding a requirement for foundation models to the AI definition would address many of my concerns.

Duties of Developers

59.1-608. Duties of developers.
A. A developer of a generative artificial intelligence system or service shall apply provenance data, either directly or through the use of third-party technologies, to synthetic digital content that is wholly generated by such developer's generative artificial intelligence system or service.
B. A developer of a generative artificial intelligence system or service shall make available to the public:

1. A provenance application tool; and

2. A provenance reader.

"Developer" means any person doing business in the Commonwealth that develops or significantly updates a generative artificial intelligence system or service that is offered, sold, leased, given, or otherwise provided to consumers in the Commonwealth.

This provision raises significant concerns. It places the entire burden of compliance on software developers, without addressing the roles of project managers, executives, stakeholders, and others who might push for features that could contravene the law.

Software developers are not licensed in any state. There is no licensing board, no formal code of ethics, no whistleblowing/reporting structure, and no real protection against termination for refusing to follow illegal instructions. On a team of 15 developers where management has deprioritized work required by this law, how would you determine which developer to hold legally responsible? Why wouldn’t the corporation bear the responsibility of the decisions it makes?

That said, there is an aspect of this law that I appreciate. It mandates the creation of a software tool called a "provenance reader," defined as follows:

"Provenance reader" means an online service, product, or feature that enables a user to view the provenance data, if any, of synthetic digital content.

If this means that all training data used to produce a model must be made public, it could have significant benefits. For example, it would ensure companies are not using copyrighted materials without permission and that the data used to train models accurately represents reality, preventing potential manipulation of the public. There are some concerns here though - what if I build an AI system that is trained in PII? Surely we should not be exposing individuals personal data to the entire world to see. A provision like this needs to come with more clarity on the responsibility of the organization to provide data security to end users.

This bill is a Good Idea

The intent of this bill is great. We absolutely need to ensure that AI software is used responsibly, and that the public and consumers can understand how that data is being used. But I’m extremely worried about the scope of this bill. As written, it could apply to almost all software written in the state of Virginia. It places way too much of the burden on software developers who have no real recourse when management instructs them to take an action that is illegal under this law. And while it rightfully pushes for transparency in data, it doesn’t address any privacy concerns that might arise from the transparency. In fact, the word “Privacy” does not appear once in the current draft of the bill.

Note: The photo used in this article was provided for free under the Unsplash license by Tingey Injury Law Firm, West Charleston Boulevard, Las Vegas, NV, USA

As the 2025 Virginia Legislative Session approaches, here’s what I’d like to see from the Democrats and my Delegate, Nadarius Clark, even if some of these goals may be unrealistic given the current political makeup of the Virginia General Assembly.

Digital Identification

Last year, Virginia launched a pilot for the Virginia mID program. Digital ID can provide a more secure form of proof of identity, it would not be possible to create a fake digital ID, and digital IDs can reduce costs and time for Virginians needing physical replacements, and it can reduce costs to the Commonwealth, and therefore taxpayers. Digital ID can also be incredibly secure - the “user” can provide a token, somewhat like an multi-factor authentication key that you would get from your bank, to the party that needs to verify the identity. Then, they can check the token against a state verification system, which provides them only with the information that they need to access. For example, a hotel may only need your name and photo, so they would not be able to see your DMV customer number.

This year, the program should be expanded to allow all Virginians to use mID as a companion to their physical licenses, with a long-term plan to eventually allow issuance of digital IDs with no physical copy.

Land Value Tax

In 2023, HB 2112, which would have permitted the implementation of a land value tax in Charlottesville, failed to pass out of committee along party lines. Currently, only the cities of Fairfax, Poquoson, Richmond, and Roanoke are authorized to use a land value tax. This tax would enable taxation of land value without taxing the value of property built on it, shifting the tax burden from small businesses and homeowners to investment companies holding large amounts of undeveloped land. Such a policy would encourage those companies to develop or sell the land to generate income without increasing their own tax burdens. The City of Suffolk could greatly benefit from adopting a land value tax, and it would be prudent to make this option available to any locality in Virginia that chooses to implement it.

Cut Through Local Bureaucracy to Build Housing

In 2024, Los Angeles County in California added fewer than 35,000 new housing units, despite being the most populous county in the U.S., with over 9 million residents. This housing shortage is part of a larger crisis across the country: cities consistently fail to build enough housing to meet demand, causing prices to rise, particularly in Democratic stronghold states like California and New York. After decades of growth without sufficient housing, California’s population has begun to decline as residents are forced to relocate to states with lower housing costs.

These trends have two major implications for elections. First, Democrats are losing electoral votes as people leave large, expensive cities for states like Texas, where housing is more affordable. Second, many Americans view Democratic-led cities like Los Angeles as poorly governed when they see median housing prices approaching $1 million.

Virginia can help address this issue by cutting through red tape and local bureaucracy. By restricting the ability of localities to limit residential zoning or designate zoning exclusively for single-family homes, the state can encourage developers to build more condos, townhouses, and apartments. This approach would lower housing costs in Virginia and attract residents fleeing high-cost states.

Education Funding

Last year, Delegate Nadarius Clark’s bill to require Virginia teachers to be paid at least the national average salary was vetoed by Governor Glenn Youngkin after passing with bipartisan support. Education is one of the most critical factors in a state’s economic success. Educated citizens contribute more economically (and pay higher taxes), commit fewer violent crimes, and enjoy better health and longevity. Virginia must ensure its long-term success by providing fair wages for highly effective educators. Failure to do so risks exacerbating the teacher shortage and its consequences for the Commonwealth.

LGBT Rights

Remove the Gay Marriage Ban from the Virginia Constitution

Last year, the House of Delegates’ Committee on Privileges and Elections continued a bill to amend the Virginia Constitution to repeal the gay marriage ban. In 2025, this bill must pass a full vote in the House of Delegates and again in 2026 before being presented to voters in November 2026. With a conservative Supreme Court likely for the next 30 years, this effort must be a top priority for Virginia Democrats to ensure that conservatives cannot reinstate a ban on gay marriage without legislative approval, even if Obergefell v. Hodges is overturned.

Affirm the Right to Medical Care for Transgender Virginians

Virginia is the only southern state without bans or restrictions on medical care for transgender individuals. Since 2022, 14 states have passed laws explicitly protecting access to such care, and two have issued executive orders to the same effect. Virginia Democrats should take the lead in not only maintaining the state’s lack of restrictions but also enacting a shield law to protect transgender residents’ access to medical care.